SPSS Portfolio Sydney Taylor BUSA 2182, MWF 1:00 p.m. 1:50 p.m.

Table of Contents SPSS Computer Lab Assignment #1 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph Appendix A SPSS Computer Lab Assignment #2 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph Appendix A SPSS Computer Lab Assignment #3 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph Appendix A SPSS Computer Lab Assignment #4 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph #1 (stepwise regression) Explanatory Paragraph #2 (correlation matrix) Conceptual Model (Figure 1) Conceptual Matrix (Table 1) Regression Output Table (Table 2) Appendix SPSS Computer Lab Assignment #5 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph #1 (Regression) Explanatory Paragraph #2 (Correlation Matrix) Figure 1 (Conceptual Model) Table 1 (Zero-Order Correlation Matrix) Table 2 (Descriptive Statistics) Table 3 (Regression Output) Appendix SPSS Computer Lab Assignment #6 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph ANOVA output table (Table 1) Appendix SPSS Computer Lab Assignment #7 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph ANOVA output table (Table 1) Appendix

SPSS Computer Lab Assignment #8 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph #1 (regression) Explanatory Paragraph #2 (correlation matrix) Conceptual Model (Figure 1) Correlation Matrix (Table 1) Regression Output Table (Table 2) Appendix SPSS Computer Lab Assignment #9 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph #1 (T-tests) Explanatory Paragraph #2 (correlation matrix) Correlation Matrix (Table 1) Appendix SPSS Computer Lab Assignment #10 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph Appendix A

Computer Lab Assignment #1 Sydney Taylor BUSA 2182, MWF 1:00 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.

Explanatory Paragraph A frequency distribution was conducted using group status, attachment, situational involvement, enduring involvement, identity salience, satisfaction and attendance. The skewness coefficients situational involvement, satisfaction, and attendance were acceptable. However, the skewness coefficients for attachment, enduring involvement, and identity salience were unacceptable. The kurtosis coefficients for attachment were acceptable. However, the kurtosis coefficient for situational involvement, enduring involvement, identity salience, satisfaction, and attendance were not significant.

Computer Lab Assignment #2 Sydney Taylor BUSA 2182, MWF 1:00 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.

Explanatory Paragraph A steam-and-leaf plot analysis was conducted using area, population, old, literacy, imports, exports, and gdp. Stem-and-leaf plots for area, population, old, literacy, and imports were positively skewed. However, gdp, were consistent with normal distribution. In addition, the steam-and-leaf plots for imports and exports were inconsistent with normal distribution.

Computer Lab Assignment #3 Sydney Taylor BUSA 2182, MWF 1:00 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.

Explanatory Paragraph = -13.019 - .638 Attachment - .250 Attendance + .524 Situational Involvement A multiple regression analysis was conducted with Enduring Involvement as the Endogenous Variable and Attachment, Attendance, Situational Involvement, and Identity Salience as the Exogenous Variable. Overall, the regression model was statistically significant (F = 161.190, p = 0.0001). Attachment, Attendance, and Situational Involvement were significant predictors of Enduring Involvement. In addition, Attachment, Attendance, and Situational Involvement were inversely related to the dependent measure, Enduring Involvement. However, Identity Salience was not a significant predictor of Enduring Involvement. The coefficient of correlation (r) indicated a moderate relationship between the predictors and Enduring Involvement (r = .953). A model fit index, the coefficient of determination (R), was .908, indicating that 90.8 percent of the variation in Enduring Involvement can be explained by Attachment, Attendance, and Situational Involvement. The adjusted R, which considers the number of predictors and the sample size, was .903, which indicated no extraneous predictors were included in the model. Because the Standard Error of the estimate was 2.40222, the prediction equation was performing satisfactorily.

Computer Lab Assignment #4 Sydney Taylor BUSA 2182, MWF 1:00 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.

Explanatory Paragraph #1 = -14.491 + .394 Attendance + .905 Satisfaction +.787 Enduring Involvement + .462 Identity Salience A Stepwise regression analysis was conducted with Attachment as the dependent variable and Attendance, Satisfaction, Enduring Involvement, and Identity Salience as the independent measures. Overall, the regression model was statistically significant (F = 173.777, p = 0.0001). Attendance, Satisfaction, Enduring Involvement and Identity Salience were significant predictors of Attachment. In addition, Attendance, Satisfaction, Enduring Involvement and Identity Salience were inversely related to the dependent measure, Attachment. The coefficient of correlation (r) indicated a moderate relationship between the predictors and Attachment (r = .956). A model fit index, the coefficient of determination (R), was .914, indicating that .914 percent of the variation in Attachment can be explained by Attendance, Satisfaction, Enduring Involvement and Identity Salience. The adjusted R, which considers the number of predictors and the sample size, was .909, which indicated no extraneous predictors were included in the model. Because the standard error of the estimate was 2.83614, the prediction equation was performing satisfactorily. MultiCollinearity was present in the regression model because the tolerance coefficient for Attendance was below the minimal threshold value.

Explanatory Paragraph #2 A bivariate correlation analysis was conducted using, Attachment, Attendance, Satisfaction, Enduring Involvement, and Identity Salience. Attachment was significantly correlated with Attendance, Satisfaction, Enduring Involvement, and Identity Salience.

Figure 1: A Conceptual Model of Attachment

Attendance

Satisfaction

Attachment

Enduring Involvement

Identity Salience

Table 1: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Zero-Order Correlations

Variables

Mean

Standard Deviation

1. Attachment
2. Attendance 3. Satisfaction 4. Enduring Involvement 33.34 5. Identity Salience

30.64 10.27 10.86 7.70** 10.87

9.41 3.13** 2.81** .806** 3.79** .784** .665** .602** .226 .807** .880** .149 .645** .493**

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 3: Regression Analysis with Attachment as the Endogenous Variable and Attendance, Satisfaction, Enduring Involvement, and Identity Salience as the Exogenous Variable, (n=70).

Independent Variables

Beta

T-value

Tolerance

P-value

(Constant) Attendance Satisfaction Enduring Involvement .644 Identity Salience .186 .131 .271 14.554

-7.346 1.257 3.448 .672 2.487 .236 .121 .214 .000

.0001* .213 .001

.015

* Significant at the 0.05 level

Computer Lab Assignment #5 Sydney Taylor BUSA 2182, MWF 1:00 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.

Explanatory Paragraph #1 = 9.896 +.604 Attendance + .135 Attachment A Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with Satisfaction as the dependent variable, Attendance, Attachment, Enduring Involvement, Identity Salience, and Situational Involvement as the independent measures. Overall, the regression model was statistically significant (F = 65.603, p = 0.0001). Attendance and Attachment were significant predictors of Satisfaction. In addition, aforementioned predictors were positively related to the dependent measure, Satisfaction. Conversely, Enduring Involvement, Identity Salience, and Situational Involvement were not significant predictors of Satisfaction. The coefficient of correlation (r) indicated a strong relation between predictors and Satisfaction (r = .915). A model fit index, the coefficient of determination (R), was .837, indicating that 83.7 percent of the variation in Satisfaction can be explained by Attendance and Attachment. The adjusted R, which considers the numbers of predictors and the sample size, was .824, which indicated no extraneous predictors included in the model. Because the standard error of the estimate was 1.181, the prediction equation was performing satisfactorily. The Multi-Collinearity was present in the regression model because the tolerance coefficient for Enduring Involvement, Identity Salience, and Situational Involvement was below the minimum threshold value.

Explanatory Paragraph #2 A bivariate correlation analysis was conducted using, Satisfaction, Attendance, Attachment, Enduring Involvement, Identity Salience, and Situational Involvement. Satisfaction was significantly correlated with Attendance, Attachment, Enduring Involvement, Identity Salience, and Situational Involvement.

Figure 1: A Conceptual Model of Satisfaction

Attendance

Attachment

Enduring Involvement

Satisfaction

Identity Salience

Situational Involvement

Table 1: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Zero-Order Correlations

Variables

Mean

S.D

1. Satisfaction 2. Attendance 3. Attachment 4. Enduring Involvement 33.34 5. Identity Salience 6. Situational Involvement

10.86 10.27 30.64 7.70 10.87 54.57

2.81 3.13 9.41 .149 3.79 6.81 .645** -.535** .880** .602** .226 .807** -.472** .665** .806** .784** .143 .493** .618** -.153

** Correlation is significant at the 0.0001 level

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Satisfaction, Attendance, Attachment, Enduring Involvement, Identity Salience, and Situational Involvement as the Predictor Variables, (n=70).

Variables

Mean

Standard Deviation

Satisfaction Attendance Attachment Enduring Involvement 33.34 Identity Salience Situational Involvement

10.86 10.27 30.64 7.70 10.87 54.57

2.81 3.13 9.41 . 3.79 6.81

Table 3: Regression Analysis with Satisfaction as the Endogenous Variable and Attendance, Attachment, Enduring Involvement, Identity Salience, and Situational Involvement as the Exogenous Variable, (n=70).

Independent Variables

Beta

T-value

Tolerance

P-value

(Constant) Attendance Attachment Enduring Involvement -.054 Identity Salience Situational Involvement -.268 -.291 .672 .451 -.322

4.541 5.485 2.724 .092 -2.582 -2.613 .236 .206 .170 .093 .749

.0001* .0001* .008

.012 .011

* Significant at the 0.05 level

Computer Lab Assignment #6 Sydney Taylor BUSA 2182, MWF 1:00 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.

Explanatory Paragraph A One-Way Anova Test was conducted using (X10) - Usage as the Factor Variable and X6 - Fast Service, X8Recommend to friend, X9 - Satisfaction Level, X11 - Distance Driven, and X12 - Friendly Employees Rank as the Dependent Variables. The Omnibus F-test for X8- Recommend to friend, X9 - Satisfaction Level, and X11 - Distance Driven were significant. However, the Omnibus F-test for X6 - Fast Service and X12 - Friendly Employees Rank was not significant. The contrast analysis revealed that Heavy Users has higher, X8Recommend to friend, X9 - Satisfaction Level, and X11 - Distance Driven scores compared to their Light User counterparts. However, Light Users have higher X6 - Fast Service and X12 Friendly Employees Rank.

Table 1: Results of One-Way ANOVA Testing of Usage, (n=50)

Factors

F-value

P-value

Factor X6 - Fast Service X8- Recommend to friend X9 - Satisfaction Level X11 - Distance Driven 94.255 X12 - Friendly Employees 2.164 3.844 36.595 122.279 0.56 .0001** .0001** .0001** .148

** Significant at the 0.05 level

Computer Lab Assignment #7 Sydney Taylor BUSA 2182, MWF 1:00 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.

Explanatory Paragraph

A One-Way ANOVA Test was conducted using Surface as the Factor Variable and Salary, Average, Stolen, and Wins as the Dependent Variable. The Omnibus F-Test was not significant for Salary, Average, Stolen, and Wins. The contrast analysis reported that the One Surface reported higher number of Stolen and Wins compared to the Zero Surface counterparts. In addition, Zero Surface reported higher Salary and Average compared to the One Surface counterparts.

Table 1: Results of One-Way ANOVA Testing of Surface, (n=30)

Factors

F-value

P-value

Factor Surface Salary Average Stolen Wins 3.714 .071 .092 .013 .064 .794 .763 .910

** Significant at the 0.05 level

Computer Lab Assignment #8 Sydney Taylor BUSA 2182, MWF 1:00 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.

Explanatory Paragraph #1

 = -26557.728 + 3140.973 Education + 435.174 Age A regression analysis was conducted with Wages as the Dependent Variable and Education, South, Union and Age as the Independent Variables. Overall, the regression model was statistically significant (F = 8.122, p = .0001). A model fit index, the coefficient of determination (R), was .255, indicating that 25.5 percent of the variation in Wages can be explained by Education, South, Union and Age. The coefficient of correlation (r) indicated a strong relationship between the dependent variable and Wages (r = .505). In addition the Independent Variable South and Union were not significant predictors of Wages. The adjusted R which considers the numbers of predictors and the sample size was .223, which indicated the Dependent Variable were included in the model. Because the standard error of estimate was 14934.165, the prediction equation was performing satisfactorily. The Multi-collinearity for South and Union was below the minimum threshold value.

Explanatory Paragraph #2

A bivariate correlation analysis was conducted using, Wages, Education, South, Union, and Age. Wages was significantly correlated with Education, Union, and Age. However, South was negatively correlated with Wages.

Figure 1: A Conceptual Model of Wages

Education

South

Wages

Union

Age

Table 1: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Zero-Order Correlations

Variables

Mean

Standard Deviation

1. Wages 2. Education 3. South 4. Union 5. Age

30833.46 12.73 .33 .18 39.11

16947.097 2.792 .473 .386 12.572 .408** -.081 .052 .167 -.276** .083 -.253* -.107 -.079 .273**

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

Table 3: Regression Analysis with Education, South, Union, and Age as the Independent Variable, (n=100).

Independent Variables

Beta

T-value

Tolerance

P-value

(Constant) Education South Union Age .517 .080 -.070 .323

-2.493 5.324 .851 -.751 3.326 .830 .898 .899 .833

.014 .0001 .397 .454 .001

* Significant at the 0.05 level

Computer Lab Assignment #9 Sydney Taylor BUSA 2182, MWF 1:00 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.

Explanatory Paragraph #1 An independent sample T-test was conducted using Age, Education, Experience, and Wages as the Test Variables. The Grouping Variables was Union. The Omnibus F-test for Age and Experience were significant. However, Education and Wages were not significant.

Explanatory Paragraph #2 A bivariate correlation analysis was conducted using Age, Education, Experience, and Wages as the test variables and Union as the grouping variable. Age, Education, Experience, and Wages were positively correlated with Union.

Table 1: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Zero-Order Correlations

Variables

Mean

Standard Deviation

1. Union 2. Age
3. Education

.18 39.11 12.73 20.38 30833.46

.386 12.572 2.792 13.550 16947.097 .273** .083 .236** .052 -.253** .980** .167 -.440** .408** .071

4. Experience 5. Wages

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

Computer Lab Assignment #10 Sydney Taylor BUSA 2182, MWF 1:00 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.

Explanatory Paragraph A Chi-Square analysis was conducted using Ruworking as the row and Gender as the Column. The results indicated no Gender difference was observed.