Problem 1: Applied Regression Test

Hypothesis:

H0: Emotional stability, openness to experience, self -efficacy and resilience have equal influence
on coping mechanisms among the students

HA: Is not equal to

SPSS Output:

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Coping Mechanism 3.446666 .6281575 172

Resilience 3.830162 .6473798 172
Emotional Stability 3.067415 .7345781 172
Openness to Experience 3.162545 .5558562 172
Self Efficacy 3.809972 .7719556 172

: From above table it can be interpreted that Resilience has the highest influence on Coping
Mechanism among the students

Model Summaryb

Mod R R Adjusted R Std. Error Change Statistics Durbin-

el Square Square of the R Square F df1 df2 Sig. F Watson
Estimate Change Change Change

1 .778a .605 .596 .3994128 .605 63.988 4 167 .000 2.053

a. Predictors: (Constant), Self Efficacy, Emotional Stability, Openness to Experience, Resilience

b. Dependent Variable: Coping Mechanism

: From above table it can be interpreted that the adjusted R square explains 59% of variance between
dependent and independent variable. And we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative.
Thus the model is statistically significant. Further we check the durbin Watson value, as the value
is closer to 2. We can say that there is no auto correlation.

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 40.832 4 10.208 63.988 .000b

1 Residual 26.642 167 .160

Total 67.474 171

a. Dependent Variable: Coping Mechanism

b. Predictors: (Constant), Self Efficacy, Emotional Stability, Openness to Experience, Resilience

: As the Sig value is less than 0.05, we reject the H0.

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity

Coefficients Coefficients Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

(Constant) .402 .210 1.912 .058

Resilience .415 .081 .428 5.155 .000 .343 2.912

Emotional Stability -.079 .051 -.092 -1.553 .122 .673 1.486

1
Openness to
.358 .079 .317 4.533 .000 .484 2.064
Experience

Self Efficacy .148 .070 .182 2.118 .036 .320 3.126

a. Dependent Variable: Coping Mechanism

: From above table it can be interpreted that Resilience, Openness to experience and Self efficacy
have significant values less than 0.05. Thus, these have the highest influence on the coping
mechanism.
Regression Equation

Y= .402+.428x1+-.092+.317+.182

Satisfies Normality Assumption

Satisfies Linearity Assumption

Problem 4: Factor Analysis

SPSS Output:

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .456

Approx. Chi-Square 194.574

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 21

Sig. .000

H0: Underlying Factors are all equal in relation to the purchase of a car
Ha: Not Equal
: KMO value is less than 0.5. Therefore does not have adequate sample size.

Significance is less than 0.05. Thus we reject null hypotheses and accept the alternative and
model is statistically significant.

Total Variance Explained

Compon Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared

ent Loadings Loadings

Total % of Cumulativ Total % of Cumulativ Total % of Cumulativ

Variance e% Variance e% Variance e%

1 2.729 38.992 38.992 2.729 38.992 38.992 2.699 38.562 38.562

2 2.324 33.198 72.190 2.324 33.198 72.190 2.354 33.628 72.190
3 .861 12.302 84.493
4 .530 7.575 92.067
5 .356 5.086 97.153
6 .190 2.714 99.867
7 .009 .133 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

: The 1st and 2nd components have the highest correlation and the highest contributing factors
while purchasing of a car

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2

delivery speed .536 -.732

price level .411 .793
price flexibility .163 -.780
manufacturers image .868 .048
overall service .841 .099
salesforce image .835 -.011
product quality .243 .755
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

: The highlighted factors belong to component 1 and the rest belongs to the component 2.

Problem 5: Logistic Regression

Hypothesis:

H0: B1=B2

HA: Not equal to

Model Summary

Step -2 Log likelihood Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R

Square Square

1 12.599a .486 .669

a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 6 because

parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

Chi-square df Sig.

Step 13.299 2 .001

Step 1 Block 13.299 2 .001

Model 13.299 2 .001

 Classification Tablea

Observed Predicted

buy_not Percentage

B N Correct

B 11 2 84.6
buy_not
Step 1 N 2 5 71.4

Overall Percentage 80.0

a. The cut value is .500

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

case .442 .243 3.298 1 .069 1.555

Step 1a profit -.857 .378 5.137 1 .023 .424

Constant 7.850 3.594 4.771 1 .029 2564.890

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: case, profit.

As the significant value is less than 0.5. We reject H0. Thus we conclude that model is
significant.

Problem 6: Discriminant Analysis

Hypothesis:

H0: B1=B2=B3

HA= Not equal to

SPSS Output
 Test Results

Box's M 16.405
Approx. 1.238

df1 10
F
df2 1549.004

Sig. .261

Tests null hypothesis of equal

population covariance matrices.

As the value is less than 0.05, we reject Null hypothesis.

H0: Variance is Equal

HA: Variance is not equal

Tests of Equality of Group Means

Wilks' Lambda F df1 df2 Sig.

no_cards .804 4.378 1 18 .051

age .386 28.599 1 18 .000
children .999 .021 1 18 .886
income .339 35.080 1 18 .000

The highlighted Values are less than 0.05. Thus these are the most discriminating variables. We
reject H0 and the model is statistically significant.

Pooled Within-Groups Matrices

no_cards age children income

no_cards 1.000 -.184 -.327 .418

age -.184 1.000 -.114 -.172

Correlation
children -.327 -.114 1.000 .224

income .418 -.172 .224 1.000

Here all the values are less than .75. Thus, there is no multi colinearity.
 Eigenvalues

Function Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % Canonical

Correlation

1 4.299a 100.0 100.0 .901

a. First 1 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.

Wilks' Lambda

Test of Function(s) Wilks' Lambda Chi-square df Sig.

1 .189 26.680 4 .000

Standardized
Canonical
Discriminant Function
Coefficients

Function

no_cards .006
age .741
children -.080
income .816

Structure Matrix

Function

income .673
age .608
no_cards .238
children .016
Pooled within-groups
correlations between
discriminating variables
and standardized
canonical discriminant
functions
Variables ordered by
absolute size of
correlation within
function.

Canonical Discriminant
Function Coefficients

Function

no_cards .003
age .253
children -.052
income .550
(Constant) -14.554

Unstandardized
coefficients

Functions at Group
Centroids

risktype Function

1.00 -1.967
2.00 1.967

Unstandardized
canonical discriminant
functions evaluated at
group means
 Classification Resultsa,c

risktype Predicted Group Membership Total

1.00 2.00

1.00 10 0 10

Count 2.00 0 10 10

Ungrouped cases 0 10 10
Original
1.00 100.0 .0 100.0

% 2.00 .0 100.0 100.0

Ungrouped cases .0 100.0 100.0

1.00 10 0 10
Count
2.00 2 8 10
Cross-validatedb
1.00 100.0 .0 100.0
%
2.00 20.0 80.0 100.0

a. 100.0% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

b. Cross validation is done only for those cases in the analysis. In cross validation, each case is
classified by the functions derived from all cases other than that case.
c. 90.0% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.