RESEARCH METHODOLOGY PROJECT TO IDENTIFY FACTORS AFFECTING THE CHOICE OF BIMTECH AS AGAINST OTHER INSTITUTES

Submitted ByNilanjan Maitra(2009/074) Nishant Rana (2009/075) Nitesh Saboo (2009/077) Rahul Dwivedi (2009/093) Ramesh Ramanathan (2009/096) Ravinder Pal Singh (2009/097) Ravish Tandon (2009/098)
1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to express our gratitude to all those who gave us the possibility to complete this project. First and foremost, we are grateful to our mentor, Prof. Amarnath Bose of Birla Institute of Management Technology, Greater Noida, whose help, stimulating suggestions and encouragement guided us at the time of research for this project. We also owe our deepest gratitude to our college friends who have given their valuable response to our questionnaire. Lastly, we are also deeply indebted to many of our friends who helped us with the research analysis.

Contents
Serial No
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Abstract Objectives Problem Definition Research Design Method Factor Analysis Principal Component Analysis Likert Scale Methodology Design Of Solution Executive Summary Conclusion and Recommendations References

Topic

Page No.
04 05 06 07 12 17 18 28 29 30 64 65

ABSTRACT
This project was undertaken to understand reasons for opting for BIMTECH as an institution for undergoing a Post Graduate course in Management and these factors were weighed and reasoned according to their weight age in the decision making for opting for BIMTECH.

OBJECTIVES
1. To understand the use of Factor Analysis and Multidimensional Scaling for drawing perceptual maps. 2. To create a questionnaire using Likert Scale for such studies. 3. To learn the use of SPSS

PROBLEM DEFINITION

This problem was undertaken to understand the aspect of BIMTECH qualifying as a optimal choice and this was done using the present batch of student in BIMTECH across various programmes to understand the factors the influenced them to opt for BIMTECH.

RESEARCH DESIGN METHOD

DATA COLLECTION
Data collection is the process of preparing and collecting data. The purpose of the current study was to collect the data to analyze the effect of various factors in the decision making process for selecting BIMTECH over other B schools. Primary data (using questionnaire as a data collection tool) was collected from the present students and aspiring students, to analyse the relation between the factors and selection of BIMTECH for further education. Data collection took place early in the project, and was formalized through a Plan as follows: 1. 2. 3. Pre collection activity Agree goals, target data, definitions, methods Collection data collection Present Findings using FACTOR ANALYSIS (SPSS).

Prior to any data collection, pre-collection activity is one of the most crucial steps in the process. After pre-collection activity was fully completed, data collection through questionnaire was carried out in a structured, systematic and scientific way. A formal data collection process was necessary as it ensures that data gathered is both defined and accurate and that subsequent decisions based on arguments embodied in the findings are valid.

INSTRUMENTS OF DATA COLLECTION

There are various ways to collect information, which vary in terms of difficulty. Some of them are quite easy to carry out but others are more time-consuming and will require specific skills. The instruments you choose will depend on what exactly you want to find out and you should spend some time on their design. Instruments you might include into your monitoring or evaluation system are statistics, interviews either with structured questionnaires, semistructured or in-depth talks, workshops, questionnaires, written discussions etc.

Various ways to collect data are:

Advantages

Disadvantages

Client Interview

Can be used with people who cant read or who have poor written skills

Time consuming Influence interviewer on respondent of the

Can make

clarify sure

questions

and

respondent

understands Can estimate strength of the attitude respondent question) Can probe for further information (how feels strong about

Questionnaires

Permit anonymity Gives people time to think before responding Given to many people at the same time Uniformity of measurement Data more easily analyzed

Less

flexibility

in of

exploring ideas Interpretation questions Many people express self orally better than in writing Only as good as the questions you ask

Observations

Provides information

more about on

credible behavior self-report

Need to train your observers Need to develop an observation instrument

8

(not relying only)

May observe behavior that respondent is unaware of and cant self report No additional demands on peoples time Often objective information

Time consuming

Client Records

Often incomplete Ethical issues (e.g., informed consent)

QUESTIONNAIRE AS A METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION

A questionnaire is a research instrument consisting of a series of questions and other prompts for the purpose of gathering information from respondents. Given Questionnaire has been designed for the statistical analysis of the responses. Reason for use of questionnaire: The responses could be gathered in a standardised way. Likert scale has been used along with the Questionnaire which allows easy comparion and analysis of the responses gathered. Moreover, it is relatively quick to collect information using a questionnaire. Potentially information could be collected from a large portion of a group, our sample size was in the range of 30-50 respondents, where use of questionnaire was effective and efficient. Return rates could be dramatically improved as the questionnaire was delivered and responded to the sample while they were in direct contact.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL:

1. Types of Questionnaires

Open Ended give respondent opportunity to write whatever they

want. Provides more opportunity for people to express themselves, however it is harder to code and analyze data. Closed Ended give respondent options to choose from. Quicker to Combination provide a closed ended question with an option to write complete yet you may lose some data. in comments or responses at the end of each question.

2. Question sequence

In general, questions should flow logically from one to the next. To achieve the best response rates, questions should flow from the least sensitive to the most sensitive, from the factual and behavioural to the attitudinal, and from the more general to the more specific. Tips for Writing Good Questions Keep questions as simple as possible. Make sure each question asks only one question at a time. Avoid leading questions or questions that lead the respondent to answer a certain way. Avoid negatively worded questions. Word questions so that answers are not all in the same direction (e.g., all strongly agree) to avoid people getting into a pattern. Have at least five response options in order to have more variability of responses. Determine if you want a dont know option. Do not include it if you really want to force people to state an opinion. Anchor each point on a scale in order to avoid confusion. Give clear and simple directions for people to follow.

3. Scaling Scaling involves creating a continuum upon which measured objects are located. Four primary scales of measurent are nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. Scaling techniques can be divided into comparative and noncomparative scales. Comparative scales involve the direct comparison of the stimulus objects, where as in noncomparative scales, each object is scaled independently of the others in the stimulus set. LIKERT scale, a kind of non-comparative scale. Likert scale requires the respondents to indicate a degree of agreement or disagreement with each of a series of statements

10

about the stimulus objects. Typically, each scale item has five response categories, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Reason for use of likert scale: A Likert Scale allows a participant to provide feedback that is slightly more expansive than a simple close-ended question, but that is much easier to quantify than a completely open-ended response.

11

FACTOR ANALYSIS
Factor analysis is a statistical method used to describe variability among observed variables in terms of fewer unobserved variables called factors. The observed variables are modelled as linear combinations of the factors, plus "error" terms. The information gained about the interdependencies can be used later to reduce the set of variables in a dataset. Factor analysis originated in psychometrics, and is used in behavioural sciences, social sciences, marketing, product management, operations research, and other applied sciences that deal with large quantities of data. Factor analysis is related to principal component analysis (PCA) but not identical. Because PCA performs a variance-maximizing rotation of the variable space, it takes into account all variability in the variables. In contrast, factor analysis estimates how much of the variability is due to common factors ("communality"). The two methods become essentially equivalent if the error terms in the factor analysis model (the variability not explained by common factors, see below) can be assumed to all have the same variance. FACTOR ANALYSIS IN PSYCHOMETRICS Charles Spearman spearheaded the use of factor analysis in the field of psychology and is sometimes credited with the invention of factor analysis. He discovered that school children's scores on a wide variety of seemingly unrelated subjects were positively correlated, which led him to postulate that a general mental ability, or g, underlies and shapes human cognitive performance. His postulate now enjoys broad support in the field of intelligence research, where it is known as the g theory. Raymond Cattell expanded on Spearmans idea of a two-factor theory of intelligence after performing his own tests and factor analysis. He used a multi-factor theory to explain intelligence. Cattells theory addressed alternate factors in intellectual development, including motivation and psychology. Cattell also developed several mathematical methods for adjusting psychometric graphs, such as his "scree" test and similarity coefficients. His research led to the development of his theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence, as well as his 16 Personality Factors theory of personality. Cattell was a strong advocate of factor analysis and psychometrics. He believed that all theory should be derived from research,
12

which supports the continued use of empirical observation and objective testing to study human intelligence. APPLICATIONS IN PSYCHOLOGY Factor analysis is used to identify "factors" that explain a variety of results on different tests. For example, intelligence research found that people who get a high score on a test of verbal ability are also good on other tests that require verbal abilities. Researchers explained this by using factor analysis to isolate one factor, often called crystallized intelligence or verbal intelligence that represents the degree to which someone is able to solve problems involving verbal skills. Factor analysis in psychology is most often associated with intelligence research. However, it also has been used to find factors in a broad range of domains such as personality, attitudes, beliefs, etc. It is linked to psychometrics, as it can assess the validity of an instrument by finding if the instrument indeed measures the postulated factors. ADVANTAGES Reduction of number of variables, by combining two or more variables into a single factor. For example, performance at running, ball throwing, batting, jumping and weight lifting could be combined into a single factor such as general athletic ability. Usually, in an item by people matrix, factors are selected by grouping related items. In the Q factor analysis technique, the matrix is transposed and factors are created by grouping related people: For example, liberals, libertarians, conservatives and socialists, could form separate groups. Identification of groups of inter-related variables, to see how they are related to each other. For example, Carroll used factor analysis to build his Three Stratum Theory. He found that a factor called "broad visual perception" relates to how good an individual is at visual tasks. He also found a "broad auditory perception" factor, relating to auditory task capability. Furthermore, he found a global factor, called "g" or general intelligence, that relates to both "broad visual perception" and "broad auditory perception". This means someone with a high "g" is likely to have both a high "visual perception" capability and a high "auditory perception" capability, and that "g" therefore explains a good part of why someone is good or bad in both of those domains.

13

DISADVANTAGES "Each orientation is equally acceptable mathematically. But different factorial theories proved to differ as much in terms of the orientations of factorial axes for a given solution as in terms of anything else, so that model fitting did not prove to be useful in distinguishing among theories.". This means all rotations represent different underlying processes, but all rotations are equally valid outcomes of standard factor analysis optimization. Therefore, it is impossible to pick the proper rotation using factor analysis alone. Factor analysis can be only as good as the data allows. In psychology, where researchers have to rely on more or less valid and reliable measures such as self-reports, this can be problematic. Interpreting factor analysis is based on using a heuristic, which is a solution that is "convenient even if not absolutely true" (Richard B. Darlington). More than one interpretation can be made of the same data factored the same way, and factor analysis cannot identify causality. FACTOR ANALYSIS IN MARKETING The basic steps are: Identify the salient attributes consumers use to evaluate products in this category. Use quantitative marketing research techniques (such as surveys) to collect data from a sample of potential customers concerning their ratings of all the product attributes. Input the data into a statistical program and run the factor analysis procedure. The computer will yield a set of underlying attributes (or factors). Use these factors to construct perceptual maps and other product positioning devices. INFORMATION COLLECTION The data collection stage is usually done by marketing research professionals. Survey questions ask the respondent to rate a product sample or descriptions of product concepts on a range of attributes. Anywhere from five to twenty attributes are chosen. They could include
14

things like: ease of use, weight, accuracy, durability, colourfulness, price, or size. The attributes chosen will vary depending on the product being studied. The same question is asked about all the products in the study. The data for multiple products is coded and input into a statistical program such as R, SPSS, SAS, Stata, and SYSTAT. ANALYSIS The analysis will isolate the underlying factors that explain the data. Factor analysis is an interdependence technique. The complete set of interdependent relationships are examined. There is no specification of dependent variables, independent variables, or causality. Factor analysis assumes that all the rating data on different attributes can be reduced down to a few important dimensions. This reduction is possible because the attributes are related. The rating given to any one attribute is partially the result of the influence of other attributes. The statistical algorithm deconstructs the rating (called a raw score) into its various components, and reconstructs the partial scores into underlying factor scores. The degree of correlation between the initial raw score and the final factor score is called a factor loading. There are two approaches to factor analysis: "principal component analysis" (the total variance in the data is considered); and "common factor analysis" (the common variance is considered). Note that principal component analysis and common factor analysis differ in terms of their conceptual underpinnings. The factors produced by principal component analysis are conceptualized as being linear combinations of the variables whereas the factors produced by common factor analysis are conceptualized as being latent variables. Computationally, the only difference is that the diagonal of the relationships matrix is replaced with communalities (the variance accounted for by more than one variable) in common factor analysis. This has the result of making the factor scores indeterminate and thus differ depending on the method used to compute them whereas those produced by principal component analysis are not dependent on the method of computation. Although there have been heated debates over the merits of the two methods, a number of leading statisticians have concluded that in practice there is little difference which makes sense since the computations are quite similar despite the differing conceptual bases, especially for datasets where communalities are high and/or there are many variables, reducing the influence of the diagonal of the relationship matrix on the final result.

15

The use of principal components in a semantic space can vary somewhat because the components may only "predict" but not "map" to the vector space. This produces a statistical principal component use where the most salient words or themes represent the preferred basis. ADVANTAGES Both objective and subjective attributes can be used provided the subjective attributes can be converted into scores Factor Analysis can be used to identify hidden dimensions or constructs which may not be apparent from direct analysis It is easy and inexpensive to do

DISADVANTAGES Usefulness depends on the researchers' ability to collect a sufficient set of product attributes. If important attributes are missed the value of the procedure is reduced. If sets of observed variables are highly similar to each other but distinct from other items, factor analysis will assign a single factor to them. This may make it harder to identify factors that capture more interesting relationships. Naming the factors may require background knowledge or theory because multiple attributes can be highly correlated for no apparent reason.

16

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS

Principal components analysis and Factor analysis are used to identify underlying constructs or factors that explain the correlations among a set of items. They are often used to summarize a large number of items with a smaller number of derived items, called factors. BASIC DEFINITIONS Communality It is the proportion of the variance of an item that is accounted for by the common factors in a factor analysis. The unique variance of an item is given by 1 h2 = Item Specific variance + Item error variance (random error). Eigen value The standardized variance associated with a particular factor. The sum of the eigenvalues cannot exceed the number of items in the analysis, since each item contributes 1 to the sum of variances. Factor A linear combination of items (in a regression sense, where the total test score is the dependent variable, and the items are the independent variables). Factor loading For a given item in a given factor, this is the correlation between the vector of subjects responses to that item, with the vector of (subjects) predicted scores, according to a regression equation treating the entire set of items as independent variables. The factor loading expresses the correlation of the item with the factor. The square of this factor loading indicates the proportion of variance shared by the item with the factor.

17

Factor Pattern Matrix A matrix containing the coefficients or "loadings" used to express the item in terms of the factors. This is the same as the structure matrix if the factors are orthogonal (uncorrelated). Factor Structure Matrix A matrix containing the correlations of the item with each of the factors. This is the same as the pattern matrix if the factors are orthogonal, i.e., uncorrelated (principal components analysis). Rotated factor solution A factor solution, where the axis of the factor plot is rotated for the purposes of uncovering a more meaningful pattern of item factor loadings. Scree plot A plot of the obtained eigenvalues for each factor.

18

LIKERT SCALE
Likert scale is the most widely used scale in survey research. When responding to a Likert questionnaire item, respondents specify their level of agreement to a statement. An important distinction must be made between a Likert scale and a Likert item. The Likert scale is the sum of responses on several Likert items. Because Likert items are often accompanied by a visual analog scale (e.g., a horizontal line, on which a subject indicates his or her response by circling or checking tick-marks), the items are sometimes called scales themselves. This is the source of much confusion; it is better, therefore, to reserve the term Likert scale to apply to the summated scale, and Likert item to refer to an individual item. A Likert item is simply a statement which the respondent is asked to evaluate according to any kind of subjective or objective criteria; generally the level of agreement or disagreement is measured. Often five ordered response levels are used, although many psychometricians advocate using seven or nine levels; a recent empirical study[3] found that a 5- or 7- point scale may produce slightly higher mean scores relative to the highest possible attainable score, compared to those produced from a 10-point scale, and this difference was statistically significant. In terms of the other data characteristics, there was very little difference among the scale formats in terms of variation about the mean, skewness or kurtosis. The format of seven-level Likert item used in our Questionnaire is: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Somewhat disagree 4. Neither agree nor disagree 5. Somewhat agree 6. Agree 7. Strongly agree
19

A STEPWISE TREATMENT OF FACTOR ANALYSIS

The flow diagram that presents the steps in factor analysis is reproduced. As can be seen, it consists of seven main steps: reliable measurements, correlation matrix, factor analysis versus principal component analysis, the number of factors to be retained, factor rotation, and use and interpretation of the results. Below, these steps will be discussed one at a time. MEASUREMENTS Since factor analysis departures from a correlation matrix, the used variables should first of all be measured at (at least) an interval level. Secondly, the variables should roughly be normally distributed; this makes it possible to generalize the results of your analysis beyond the sample collected . Thirdly, the sample size should be taken into consideration, as correlations are not resistant , and can hence seriously influence the reliability of the factor analysis. According to much has been written about the necessary sample size for factor analysis resulting in many rules-of-thumb. Field himself, for example, states that a researcher should have at least 10-15 subjects per variable however, states that you should have at least 50 observations and at least 5 times as many observations as variables. Fortunately, Monte Carlo studies have resulted in more specific statements concerning sample size. The general conclusion of these studies was that the most important factors in determining reliable factor solutions was the absolute sample size and the absolute magnitude of factor loadings The more frequent and higher the loadings are on a factor, the smaller the samplecan be. This conclusion is adjacent to the conclusion above, as communalities can be seen as a continuation of factor loadings: the communality of a variable is the sum of the loadings of this variable on all extracted factors. As such, the communality of a variable represents the proportion of the variance in that variable that can be accounted for by all (common) extracted factors. Thus if the communality of a variable is high, the extracted factors account for a big proportion of the variables variance. This thus means that this particular variable is reflected well via the extracted factors, and hence that the factor analysis is reliable. When the communalities are not very high though, the sample size has to compensate for this. In SPSS a convenient option is offered to check whether the sample is big enough:
20

theKaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO-test). The sample is adequate ifthe value of KMO is greater than 0.5. Furthermore, SPSS can calculate an anti-image matrixof covariances and correlations. All elements on the diagonal of this matrix should be greater than 0.5 if the sample is adequate. CORRELATION MATRIX When the data are appropriate, it is possible to create a correlation matrix by calculating the correlations between each pair of variables. The following (hypothetical) matrix offers an example of this: In this matrix two clusters of variables with high inter correlations are represented. As has already been said before, these clusters of variables could well be manifestations of the same underlying variable. The data of this matrix could then be reduced down into these two underlying variables or factors. With respect to the correlation matrix, two things are important: the variables have to be inter correlated, but they should not correlate too highly (extreme multi collinear and singularity) as this would cause difficulties in determining the unique contribution of the variables to a factor. In SPSS the inter correlation can be checked by using Bartletts test of severity, which tests the null hypothesis that the original correlation matrix is an identity matrix. This test has to be significant: when the correlation matrix is an identity matrix, there would be no correlations between the variables. Multi collinear, then, can be detected via the determinant of the correlation matrix, which can also be calculated in SPSS: if the determinant is greater than 0.00001, then there is no multi collinearity. FACTOR ANALYSIS VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS After having obtained the correlation matrix, it is time to decide which type of analysis to use factor analysis or principal component analysis. The main difference between these types of analysis lies in the way the communalities are used. In principal component analysis it is assumed that the communalities are initially. In other words, principal component analysis assumes that the total variance of the variables can be accounted for by means of its components (or factors), and hence that there is no error variance. On the other hand, factor analysis does assume error variance. This is reflected in the fact that in factor analysis the

21

communalities have to estimated, which makes factor analysis more complicated than principal component analysis, but also more conservative. TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS In order to understand the technical aspects of principal component analysis it is necessary be familiar with the basis notions of matrix algebra. I assume this familiarity to be present with the readers. The extraction of principal components or factors in principal component analysis takes place by calculating the eigenvalues of the matrix. Hence, the number of positive eigenvalues determines the number of factors/components to be extracted. The construction of the factor itself is then calculated via a transformation matrix that is determined by the eigenvectors of the eigenvalues. After constructing the factors it is possible to determine the factor loadings simply by calculating the correlations between the original variables and the newly obtained factors or components. In principal component analysis: 1. The new variables (principal components) should be chosen in such a way that the first component accounts for the maximum part of the variance, the second component the maximum part of the remaining variance, and so on. 2. The scores on the new variables (components) are not correlated. TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF FACTOR ANALYSIS In factor analysis the different assumption with regard to the communalities is reflected in a different correlation matrix as compared to the one used in principal component analysis. Since in principal component analysis all communalities are initially 1, the diagonal of the correlation matrix only contains unities. In factor analysis, the initial communalities are not assumed to be 1; they are estimated (most frequently) by taking the squared multiple correlations of the variables with other variables. These estimated communalities are then represented on the diagonal of the correlation matrix, from which the eigenvalues will be determined and the factors will be extracted. After extraction of the factors new

22

communalities can be calculated, which will be represented in a reproduced correlation matrix. The difference between factor analysis and principal component analysis is very important in interpreting the factor loadings: by squaring the factor loading of a variable the amount of variance accounted for by that variable is obtained. However, in factor analysis it is already initially assumed that the variables do not account for 100% of the variance. WHICH TYPE OF ANALYSIS TO CHOOSE? Strong feelings exist concerning the choice between factor analysis and principal component analysis. Theoretically, factor analysis is more correct, but also more complicated. Practically, however, the solutions generated from principal component analysis differ little from those derived from factor analysis techniques. The choice between factor analysis thus depends on the number of variables and the magnitude of the factor loadings. After having made this choice, the question arises how many factors there are to be retained. NUMBER OF FACTORS TO BE RETAINED As can be inferred from the last section, the number of factors to be retained is similar to the number of positive eigenvalues of the correlation matrix. This may, however, not always lead to the right solutions, as it is possible to obtain eigenvalue that are positive but very close to zero. Therefore, some rules of thumb have been suggested for determining how many factors should be retained 1. Retain only those factors with an eigenvalue larger than 1 (Guttman-Kaiser rule). 2. Keep the factors which, in total, account for about 70-80% of the variance; 3. Make a scree-plot5; keep all factors bef ore the breaking point or elbow. It is furthermore always important to check the communalities after factor extraction. If the communalities are low, the extracted factors account for only a little part of the variance, a

nd
23

more factors might be retained in order to provide a better account of the variance. The sample size also comes into play when considering these communalities. FACTOR ROTATION After factor extraction it might be difficult to interpret and name the factors / components on the basis of their factor loadings. Remember that the criterion of principal component analysis that the first factor accounts for the maximum part of the variance; this will often ensure that most variables have high loadings on the most important factor, and small loadings on all other factors. Thus, interpretation of the factors can be very difficult. A solution for this difficulty is factor rotation. Factor rotation alters the pattern of the factor loadings, and hence can improve interpretation. Rotation can best be explained by imagining factors as axes in a graph, on which the original variables load. By rotating these axes, then, it is possible to make clusters of variables load optimally, as is shown in figure 2 on the next page. Figure 2 also represents the two types of rotation: orthogonal and oblique rotation. In orthogonal rotation there is no correlation between the extracted factors, while in oblique rotation there is. It is not always easy to decide which type of rotation to take; states, the choice of rotation depends on whether there is a good theoretical reason to suppose that the factors should be related or independent, and also how the variables cluster on the factors before rotation. A fairly straightforward way to decide which rotation to take is to carry out the analysis using both types of rotation; if the oblique rotation demonstrates a negligible correlation between the extracted factors then it is reasonable to use the orthogonally rotated solution. There are several methods to carry out rotations. SPSS offers five: varimax, quart Imax, equamax, direct obliging and prom ax. The first three options are orthogonal rotation; the last two oblique. It depends on the situation, but mostly varimax is used in orthogonal rotation and direct oblimin in oblique rotation. Orthogonal rotation results in a rotated component / factor matrix that presents the post-rotation loadings of the original variables on the extracted factors, and a transformation matrix that gives information about the angle of rotation. In oblique rotation the results are a pattern matrix, structure matrix, and a component correlation matrix. The pattern matrix presents the pattern loadings (regression coefficients of the variable on each of the factors; while the structure matrix presents structure loadings (correlations between the variables and the factors); most of the time the pattern matrix is
24

used to interpret the factors. The component correlation matrix presents the correlation between the extracted factors / components, and is thus important for choosing between orthogonal and oblique rotation. RESULTS: FACTOR LOADINGS AND FACTOR SCORES In the last paragraph it was already reported that the factor loadings are represented in the rotated component matrix. As may be known by now, these factor loadings are important for the interpretation of the factors, especially the high ones. One can wonder, however, how high a loading has to be in order to determine the interpretation of the factor in a significant way. This is dependent of the sample size the bigger the sample the smaller the loadings can be to be significant. Scientists made a critical values table to determine this significance. On the other hand, that the significance of a loading gives little indication of the substantive importance of a variable to a factor. For this to determine, the loadings have to be squared. This is only possible in principal component analysis, though. In factor analysis the amount of explained variance is calculated in a different way. Thus, Stevens recommendation should be approached with care. The second result of factor analysis is the factor scores. These factor scores can be useful in several ways. 1. If one wants to find out whether groups or clusters of subjects can be distinguished that behave similarly in scoring on a test battery, [and] the latent, underlying variables are considered to be more fundamental than the original variables, the clustering of factor scores in the factor space can provide useful clues to that end 2. The factor scores can serve as a solution to multicollinearity problems in multiple regression. After all, the factor scores are uncorrelated (in the case of orthogonal rotation). The factor scores can also be useful in big experiments, containing several measures using the same subjects. If it is already known in advance that a number of dependent variables used in the experiment in fact constitute similar measures of the same underlying variable, it may be a good idea to use the scores on the different factors, instead of using the scores on the original variables.
25

In SPSS the factor scores for each subject can be saved as variables in the data editor. Doing this via the Anderson-Rubin method (option in SPSS) ensures that the factor scores are uncorrelated, and hence usable in a multiple regression analysis. If it does not matter whether factor scores are correlated or not, the Regression method can be used. The correlation between factor scores can also be represented in a factor score covariance matrix, which is displayed in the SPSS output (next to a factor score coefficient matrix, which in itself is not particularly useful. RELIABILITY One way to think of reliability is that other things being equal, a person should get the same score on a questionnaire if they complete it at two different points in time (test-retest reliability. Another way to look at reliability is to say that two people who are the same in terms of the construct being measured, should get the same score. In statistical terms, the usual way to look at reliability is based on the idea that individual items (or sets of items) should produce results consistent with the overall questionnaire. The simplest way to do this is in practice is to use split half reliability. This method randomly splits the data set into two. A score for each participant is then calculated based on each half of the scale. If a scale is very reliable a persons score on one half of the scale should be the same (or similar) to their score on the other half: therefore, across several participants scores from the two halves of the questionnaire should correlate perfectly (well, very highly). The correlation between the two halves is the statistic computed in the split half method, with large correlations being a sign of reliability. The problem with this method is that there are several ways in which a set of data can be split into two and so the results could be a product of the way in which the data were split. To overcome this problem, Cronbach (1951) came up with a measure that is loosely equivalent to splitting data in two in every possible way and computing the correlation coefficient for each split. The average of these values is equivalent to Cronbachs alpha, , which is the most common measure of scale reliability (This is a convenient way to think of Cronbachs alpha but see Field, 2005, for a more technically correct explanation). There are two versions of alpha: the normal and the standardized versions. The normal alpha is appropriate when items on a scale are summed to produce a single score for that scale (the
26

standardized is not appropriate in these cases). The standardized alpha is useful though when items on a scale are standardized before being summed. Interpreting Cronbachs Youll often see in books, journal articles, or be told by people that a value of 0.7-0.8 is an acceptable value for Cronbachs alpha; values substantially lower indicate an unreliable scale. Kline (1999) notes that although the generally accepted value of 0.8 is appropriate for cognitive tests such as intelligence tests, for ability tests a cut-off point of 0.7 if more suitable. He goes onto say that when dealing with psychological constructs values below even 0.7 can, realistically, be expected because of the diversity of the constructs being measured. However, Cortina (1993) notes that such general guidelines need to be used with caution because the value of alpha depends on the number of items on the scale (see Field, 2005 for details). Alpha is also affected by reverse scored items. For example, in our SAQ from last week we had one item (question 3) that was phrased the opposite way around to all other items. The item was standard deviations excite me. Compare this to any other item and youll see it requires the opposite response. For example, item 1 is statistics make me cry. Now, if you dont like statistics then youll strongly agree with this statement and so will get a score of 5 on our scale. For item 3, if you hate statistics then standard deviations are unlikely to excite you so youll strongly disagree and get a score of 1 on the scale. These reverse phrased items are important for reducing response bias) participants will actually have to read the items in case they are phrased the other way around. In reliability analysis these reverse scored items make a difference: in the extreme they can lead to a negative Cronbachs alpha.

METHODOLOGY
27

To achieve the above objective, initially 32 motivational questions were identified through a group discussion and analysis involving 7 people. Once framed and properly fragmented, these were individually filled for a process of Descriptive Research. A cross-board survey was undertaken involving students from Birla Institute of Management Technology and outside. Students from all geographical backgrounds within age group of 21-27 pursuing their post-graduation in various streams were covered. This gave a congregated set of 112 responses which were then segregated and keyed into SPSS. SPSS was extensively used to narrow down the factors into components which directly influenced the hypothesis which is extensively explained in the analysis.

DESIGN OF SOLUTION
The following questionnaire was used for the survey:
28

1.Residential campus of bimtech is an important criterion for selecting BIMTECH ? 2.Availability of residential faculty was a factor for selecting BIMTECH? 3.Past placement statics was an important factor for selecting BIMTECH ? 4.Bimtech's association with Birla group inclined you to choose Bimtech. 5.Faculties educational background was not a deciding factor for your selection. 6.The ratio of the average pay package to the fee structure was a significant consideration for selecting Bimtech. 7.Bimtech's ranking among the top 10 private institutes of the country was a deciding factor 8.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it . 9.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it ? 10.BIMTECH syllabus curriculum played an important role for selecting it? 11.Affiliation with the International institutes a criteria for your preference of the institute ? 12.Birla Brand was not considered to be an important factor for your selection 13.The infrastructure of BIMTECH was one of the criteria for selecting it

14.Perception of Bimtech's association with ADITYA BIRLA group was a criteria for selecting it 15.Student exchange programs and tie up with the international institutes is also a factor for selecting BIMT from others 16.Number and kind of companies visiting the campus was of significance while making your choice of BIMTECH 17.Affliation to AICTE an important factor for selction 18.Bimtech's proximity to Delhi was a criteria for selecting it 19.Educational qualification of the faculty influenced your choice of Bimtech over other institutes 20.Accredition of the PGDM course from NBA was a criteria 21.Internet facilities and various IT facilities provided by BIMTECH 22.The various publications like magzines , papers , articles by bimtech faculty was a factor. 23.Alumni of Bimtech was a factor 24.Trimester system instead of semester system was not a factor. 25.The diverse educational background of the students picked by bimtech was a factor 26.The good reputation of BITS Piilani was a factor 27.The twenty one years of trust is considered as a factor for selection of BIMTECH 28.BIMTECH's proximity to corporate hubs(Delhi, NCR) did not affect your selection.
29

29.Bimtechs flagship course being a diploma programme than a masters programme was a significant factor while selecting B school 30.Average placement package a Criterion for your choice 31.Profile of visiting faculty was a criteria 32.Male to female ratio was a factor

The Questionnaire Reliability Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary N Cases Valid Excludeda Total 56 56 112 % 50.0 50.0 100.0

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .710 32

The Croanbachs alpha value obtained is 0.71 which is very good estimate. Any value greater than 0.7 for Croanbach alpha tells us that the questionnaire used for research is reliable and the results obtained can be used for further analysis.

30

Factor Analysis (Iteration 1)

31

Communalities Initial 1.Residential campus of bimtech is an important criterion for selecting 1.000 BIMTECH ? 2.Availability of residential faculty was a factor for selecting BIMTECH? 3.Past placement statics was an important factor for selecting BIMTECH ? 4.Bimtech's association with Birla group inclined you to choose Bimtech. 1.000 1.000 1.000 .997 .926 .995 .979 .919 Extraction .950

5.Faculties educational background was not a deciding factor for your selection. 1.000 6.The ratio of the average pay package to the fee structure was a significant 1.000 consideration for selecting Bimtech. 7.Bimtech's ranking among the top 10 private institutes of the country was a 1.000 deciding factor 8.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it . 9.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it ? 10.BIMTECH syllabus curriculum played an important role for selecting it? 1.000 1.000 1.000

.973

.931 .927 .967 .888

11.Affiliation with the International institutes a criteria for your preference of 1.000 the institute ? 12.Birla Brand was not considered to be an important factor for your selection 13.The infrastructure of BIMTECH was one of the criteria for selecting it 1.000 1.000

.944 .920 .975

14.Perception of Bimtech's association with ADITYA BIRLA group was a 1.000 criteria for selecting it 15.Student exchange programs and tie up with the international institutes is also 1.000 a factor for selecting BIMTECH from others 16.Number and kind of companies visiting the campus was of significance 1.000 while making your choice of BIMTECH 17.Affliation to AICTE an important factor for selction 18.Bimtech's proximity to Delhi was a criteria for selecting it 1.000 1.000

.949

.842

.966 .999 .976

19.Educational qualification of the faculty influenced your choice of Bimtech 1.000

32

Communalities indicate the amount of variance in each variable that is accounted for. Initial communalities are estimates of the variance in each variable accounted for by all components or factors. For principal components analysis, this is always equal to 1.0 (for correlation analyses) or the variance of the variable (for covariance analyses). Extraction communalities are estimates of the variance in each variable accounted for by the factors (or components) in the factor solution. Small values indicate variables that do not fit well with the factor solution, and should possibly be dropped from the analysis. In our analysis, we have dropped variables whose extraction value is less than 0.5. In the above table, there is no value below 0.5; therefore, we consider all the variables for our analysis.

33

Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Total 6.258 4.865 3.983 3.354 2.798 2.708 1.909 1.723 1.309 1.211 .964 .675 .244 9.092E-16 7.567E-16 7.210E-16 5.106E-16 3.810E-16 2.706E-16 1.566E-16 1.212E-16 % of Variance 19.555 15.202 12.446 10.481 8.743 8.463 5.966 5.383 4.092 3.783 3.013 2.110 .764 2.841E-15 2.365E-15 2.253E-15 1.596E-15 1.191E-15 8.457E-16 4.892E-16 3.789E-16 97.126 99.236 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 Cumulative %

34

Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Compon ent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Cumulative % 19.555 34.757 47.203 57.683 66.426 74.889 80.855 86.238 90.330 94.113 Total 6.258 4.865 3.983 3.354 2.798 2.708 1.909 1.723 1.309 1.211 % of Variance 19.555 15.202 12.446 10.481 8.743 8.463 5.966 5.383 4.092 3.783 Cumulative % 19.555 34.757 47.203 57.683 66.426 74.889 80.855 86.238 90.330 94.113

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

35

Total Variance Explained Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Totals 4.353 4.003 3.774 3.188 2.844 2.680 2.477 2.331 2.283 2.183 % of Variance 13.602 12.511 11.795 9.964 8.887 8.375 7.740 7.283 7.135 6.821 Cumulative % 13.602 26.113 37.907 47.871 56.758 65.133 72.874 80.157 87.292 94.113

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

This table gives Eigen values, variance explained, and cumulative variance explained for your factor solution. The first panel gives values based on initial eigen values. The "Total" column gives the amount of variance in the observed variables accounted for by each component or factor. The "% of Variance" column gives the percent of variance accounted for by each specific factor or component, relative to the total variance in all the variables. The "Cumulative %" column gives the percent of variance accounted for by all factors or components up to and including the current one. In a good factor analysis, there are a few factors that explain a lot of the variance. For principal components extraction, these values will be the same as those reported under Initial Eigenvalues

36

The total variance explained by the eleven factors is 94.113 %

37

The scree plot helps to determine the optimal number of components. The Eigenvalues of each component in the initial solution is plotted. Generally, the components on the steep slope are extracted. The components on the shallow slope contribute little to the solution.

The last big drop occurs between the ninth and tenth components, so we use the first ten components.

38

Component Matrixa Component 1 1.Residential of bimtech campus .618 is an 2 .090 3 .025 4 .455 5 .318 6 -.217 7 .157 8 -.037 9 .422 10 .013

important criterion for selecting BIMTECH ? 2.Availability of .041 .833 .238 .035 -.034 -.201 -.115 -.295 .239 .211

residential faculty was a factor for selecting BIMTECH? 3.Past statics important placement .098 was an factor for -.202 .529 .622 -.328 -.136 -.141 -.248 .036 .023

selecting BIMTECH ? 4.Bimtech's association with Birla group inclined you to choose Bimtech. 5.Faculties educational -.646 background was not a deciding factor for your selection. 6.The ratio of the -.057 .158 .232 .769 -.278 -.188 -.161 .109 -.158 .265 .560 -.170 .349 .191 .078 .184 .043 -.021 -.139 .158 .298 -.118 .343 .529 .404 -.138 .311 .074 .431

average pay package to the fee structure was a significant consideration selecting Bimtech. 7.Bimtech's among the ranking .478 top 10 -.659 -.133 -.053 -.049 .137 -.183 -.019 .280 .397 for

private institutes of the country was a deciding factor 8.Bimtech's featuring .042 -.548 .048 -.045 -.061 .379 -.196 -.639 -.042 .172

in major surveys was a

39

Component Matrixa Component 1 1.Residential of bimtech campus .618 is an 2 .090 3 .025 4 .455 5 .318 6 -.217 7 .157 8 -.037 9 .422 10 .013

important criterion for selecting BIMTECH ? 2.Availability of .041 .833 .238 .035 -.034 -.201 -.115 -.295 .239 .211

residential faculty was a factor for selecting BIMTECH? 3.Past statics important placement .098 was an factor for -.202 .529 .622 -.328 -.136 -.141 -.248 .036 .023

selecting BIMTECH ? 4.Bimtech's association with Birla group inclined you to choose Bimtech. 5.Faculties educational -.646 background was not a deciding factor for your selection. 6.The ratio of the -.057 .158 .232 .769 -.278 -.188 -.161 .109 -.158 .265 .560 -.170 .349 .191 .078 .184 .043 -.021 -.139 .158 .298 -.118 .343 .529 .404 -.138 .311 .074 .431

average pay package to the fee structure was a significant consideration selecting Bimtech. 7.Bimtech's among the ranking .478 top 10 -.659 -.133 -.053 -.049 .137 -.183 -.019 .280 .397 for

private institutes of the country was a deciding factor 8.Bimtech's featuring .042 -.548 .048 -.045 -.061 .379 -.196 -.639 -.042 .172

in major surveys was a

40

The above table (called the Pattern Matrix for oblique rotations) reports the factor loadings for each variable on the components or factors after rotation. Each number represents the partial correlation between the item and the rotated factor. These correlations help in formulating an interpretation of the factors or components. This is done by looking for a common thread among the variables that have large loadings for a particular factor or component.

Component Transformation Matrix Compon ent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 .627 .407 .160 .022 -.355 .384 .256 .136 -.228 -.072 2 .505 -.582 .021 -.234 -.123 .160 -.270 -.242 .242 .347 3 .547 .066 .030 .111 .372 -.720 .089 .130 .047 -.021 4 -.043 -.109 .353 .795 -.304 -.139 -.161 -.243 -.119 .139 5 -.140 .540 .197 -.266 -.241 -.245 -.041 -.169 .329 .568 6 -.031 .050 .580 -.275 .387 .072 -.348 -.055 -.546 .084 7 .147 .342 -.242 .120 .338 .187 -.144 -.749 .104 -.217

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

41

Component Transformation Matrix Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 .040 .136 -.090 .374 .487 .408 -.112 .403 .226 .450 9 -.087 -.221 .289 .000 .256 .104 .815 -.281 .027 .201 10 -.004 .012 .568 -.014 .054 .113 -.091 .117 .636 -.485

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Now we need to find those ten factors that determine the choice. So we repeat the process by applying factor analysis on the data. The data in all iteration is smaller in size than the previous one. To eliminate the unwanted factors we see the rotated component matrix. We eliminate those questions wherein the difference between the highest and the second highest value is less. We continue this process till we cant eliminate any factor. In the first iteration we have eliminated 20 factors for which the data is irrelevant and ambiguous. We will now start with the second iteration.

Factor Analysis (Iteration 2)

42

KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square df Sig. 352.310 66 .000 .301

43

Communalities Initial 1.Residential campus of bimtech is an important criterion for selecting BIMTECH ? 2.Availability of residential faculty was a factor for selecting BIMTECH? 3.Past placement statics was an important factor for selecting BIMTECH ? 4.Bimtech's association with Birla group inclined you to choose Bimtech. 6.The ratio of the average pay package to the fee structure was a significant consideration for selecting Bimtech. 7.Bimtech's ranking among the top 10 private institutes of the country was a deciding factor 8.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it . 9.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it ? 10.BIMTECH syllabus curriculum played an important role for selecting it? 13.The infrastructure of BIMTECH was one of the criteria for selecting it 21.Internet facilities and various IT facilities provided by BIMTECH 30.Average placement package a Criterion for your choice Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Compon ent 1 2 3 4 Total 2.486 1.969 1.907 1.230 % of Variance 20.718 16.404 15.891 10.252 Cumulative % 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .927 .788 .602 .759 1.000 .681 1.000 .892 1.000 .765 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .867 .971 .843 .932 1.000 Extraction .861

44

Communalities Initial 1.Residential campus of bimtech is an important criterion for selecting BIMTECH ? 2.Availability of residential faculty was a factor for selecting BIMTECH? 3.Past placement statics was an important factor for selecting BIMTECH ? 4.Bimtech's association with Birla group inclined you to choose Bimtech. 6.The ratio of the average pay package to the fee structure was a significant consideration for selecting Bimtech. 7.Bimtech's ranking among the top 10 private institutes of the country was a deciding factor 8.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it . 9.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it ? 10.BIMTECH syllabus curriculum played an important role for selecting it? 13.The infrastructure of BIMTECH was one of the criteria for selecting it 21.Internet facilities and various IT facilities provided by BIMTECH 30.Average placement package a Criterion for your choice Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Compon ent 1 2 3 4 Total 2.486 1.969 1.907 1.230 % of Variance 20.718 16.404 15.891 10.252 Cumulative % 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .927 .788 .602 .759 1.000 .681 1.000 .892 1.000 .765 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .867 .971 .843 .932 1.000 Extraction .861

45

Communalities Initial 1.Residential campus of bimtech is an important criterion for selecting BIMTECH ? 2.Availability of residential faculty was a factor for selecting BIMTECH? 3.Past placement statics was an important factor for selecting BIMTECH ? 4.Bimtech's association with Birla group inclined you to choose Bimtech. 6.The ratio of the average pay package to the fee structure was a significant consideration for selecting Bimtech. 7.Bimtech's ranking among the top 10 private institutes of the country was a deciding factor 8.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it . 9.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it ? 10.BIMTECH syllabus curriculum played an important role for selecting it? 13.The infrastructure of BIMTECH was one of the criteria for selecting it 21.Internet facilities and various IT facilities provided by BIMTECH 30.Average placement package a Criterion for your choice Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Compon ent 1 2 3 4 Total 2.486 1.969 1.907 1.230 % of Variance 20.718 16.404 15.891 10.252 Cumulative % 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .927 .788 .602 .759 1.000 .681 1.000 .892 1.000 .765 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .867 .971 .843 .932 1.000 Extraction .861

46

Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cumulative % 20.718 37.122 53.014 63.266 73.109 82.402 Total 2.486 1.969 1.907 1.230 1.181 1.115 Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings % of Variance 20.718 16.404 15.891 10.252 9.843 9.293 Cumulative % 20.718 37.122 53.014 63.266 73.109 82.402

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Compon ent 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total 1.914 1.861 1.806 1.654 1.383 1.270 % of Variance 15.949 15.509 15.046 13.787 11.528 10.582 Cumulative % 15.949 31.459 46.505 60.292 71.820 82.402

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

47

48

Component Matrixa Component 1 1.Residential campus of bimtech is an important criterion for selecting BIMTECH ? 2.Availability of residential faculty was a factor for selecting BIMTECH? 3.Past placement statics was an important factor for selecting BIMTECH ? 4.Bimtech's association with Birla group inclined you to choose Bimtech. 6.The ratio of the average pay package to the fee structure was a significant consideration for selecting Bimtech. 7.Bimtech's ranking among the top 10 private institutes of the country was a deciding factor 8.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it . 9.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it ? 10.BIMTECH syllabus curriculum played an important role for selecting it? 13.The infrastructure of BIMTECH was one of the .024 -.366 .263 -.009 .764 -.029 .523 -.296 -.274 .682 -.089 .135 -.212 -.280 .640 .080 .209 .313 -.580 .419 -.094 .597 .109 -.055 -.269 .605 -.497 .172 .216 -.053 .355 .534 .618 -.131 -.094 -.336 .434 .111 -.205 -.029 .588 -.504 .010 .658 .697 .201 -.019 .106 .740 -.225 .294 .422 -.029 .053 .634 2 .523 3 -.200 4 -.006 5 .151 6 .352

49

50

Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 1.Residential campus of bimtech is an important criterion for selecting BIMTECH ? 2.Availability of residential faculty was a factor for selecting BIMTECH? 3.Past placement statics was an important factor for selecting BIMTECH ? 4.Bimtech's association with Birla group inclined you to choose Bimtech. 6.The ratio of the average pay package to the fee structure was a significant consideration for selecting Bimtech. 7.Bimtech's ranking among the top 10 private institutes of the country was a deciding factor 8.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it . 9.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it ? 10.BIMTECH syllabus curriculum played an important role for selecting it? 13.The infrastructure of BIMTECH was one of the criteria for selecting it -.076 -.169 -.169 .046 .529 .666 -.254 .115 .056 .913 -.111 -.005 .202 -.314 -.244 .057 .691 -.047 .113 -.340 .860 .021 .105 -.109 -.058 .207 .804 -.209 -.144 .089 .910 .106 -.162 -.068 -.210 .133 .037 .195 .081 .074 -.265 .850 .913 .043 .214 .017 .257 -.151 .247 .135 -.338 .809 .012 .136 .204 2 .857 3 .162 4 .224 5 -.014 6 .091

51

Component Transformation Matrix Compon ent 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 .188 .597 .750 .069 -.083 -.185 2 .596 .432 -.333 -.319 .096 .487 3 -.410 .595 -.395 .524 .219 .004 4 .545 -.268 .024 .782 -.080 .116 5 -.263 -.158 .412 .067 .510 .687 6 .276 -.077 -.033 -.061 .818 -.494

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Here we will eliminate only one factor. The remaining factors are quite important for the research and thus we carry the iterations further.

Factor Analysis (Iteration 3)

52

KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square Df Sig. Communalities Initial 1.Residential campus of bimtech is an important criterion for selecting BIMTECH ? 2.Availability of residential faculty was a factor for selecting BIMTECH? 3.Past placement statics was an important factor for selecting BIMTECH ? 4.Bimtech's association with Birla group inclined you to choose Bimtech. 6.The ratio of the average pay package to the fee structure was a significant consideration for selecting Bimtech. 7.Bimtech's ranking among the top 10 private institutes of the country was a deciding factor 8.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it . 9.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it ? 10.BIMTECH syllabus curriculum played an important role for selecting it? 21.Internet facilities and various IT facilities provided by BIMTECH 30.Average placement package a Criterion for your choice Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 1.000 1.000 .526 .775 1.000 .921 1.000 .585 1.000 .904 1.000 .779 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .863 .970 .522 .925 1.000 Extraction .841 311.192 55 .000 .527

53

Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Compon ent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total 2.486 1.937 1.840 1.230 1.115 .943 .831 .245 .200 .141 .032 % of Variance 22.599 17.610 16.730 11.184 10.139 8.569 7.554 2.225 1.821 1.278 .292 86.831 94.385 96.609 98.430 99.708 100.000 Cumulative %

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

54

Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Compon ent 1 2 3 4 5 Cumulative % 22.599 40.209 56.939 68.123 78.262 Total 2.486 1.937 1.840 1.230 1.115 % of Variance 22.599 17.610 16.730 11.184 10.139 Cumulative % 22.599 40.209 56.939 68.123 78.262 Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Compon ent 1 2 3 4 5 Total 1.923 1.820 1.786 1.641 1.439 % of Variance 17.479 16.548 16.240 14.916 13.079 Cumulative % 17.479 34.027 50.267 65.183 78.262

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

55

56

Component Matrixa Component 1 1.Residential campus of bimtech is an important criterion for selecting BIMTECH ? 2.Availability of residential faculty was a factor for selecting BIMTECH? 3.Past placement statics was an important factor for selecting BIMTECH ? 4.Bimtech's association with Birla group inclined you to choose Bimtech. 6.The ratio of the average pay package to the fee structure was a significant consideration for selecting Bimtech. 7.Bimtech's ranking among the top 10 private institutes of the country was a deciding factor 8.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it . 9.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it ? 10.BIMTECH syllabus curriculum played an important role for selecting it? 21.Internet facilities and various IT facilities provided by BIMTECH -.327 .108 .144 -.077 .616 .522 -.408 .021 .681 .131 -.219 .169 -.630 .082 .324 -.577 .291 .354 .598 -.051 -.262 .204 .797 .175 -.046 .357 .790 -.203 -.132 -.340 .433 -.004 .328 -.023 -.476 .012 .942 -.174 .201 .104 .737 -.008 -.373 .421 .053 .639 2 .300 3 .464 4 -.004 5 .358

57

58

Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 1.Residential campus of bimtech is an important criterion for selecting BIMTECH ? 2.Availability of residential faculty was a factor for selecting BIMTECH? 3.Past placement statics was an important factor for selecting BIMTECH ? 4.Bimtech's association with Birla group inclined you to choose Bimtech. 6.The ratio of the average pay package to the fee structure was a significant consideration for selecting Bimtech. 7.Bimtech's ranking among the top 10 private institutes of the country was a deciding factor 8.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it . 9.Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it ? 10.BIMTECH syllabus curriculum played an important role for selecting it? 21.Internet facilities and various IT facilities provided by BIMTECH -.100 .236 .226 -.201 .607 -.261 .106 .058 .909 -.107 .250 -.293 -.266 .085 .599 .123 -.325 .872 .022 .148 -.060 .214 .810 -.213 -.166 .895 .097 -.165 -.080 -.284 .054 .192 .037 .082 -.688 .924 .052 .213 .021 .260 .251 .132 -.345 .808 -.101 .205 2 .848 3 .138 4 .232 5 -.087

59

Component Transformation Matrix Compon ent 1 2 3 4 5 1 .177 .928 -.280 .076 -.155 2 .590 .155 .521 -.316 .506 3 -.410 .248 .703 .526 .007 4 .534 -.204 -.203 .783 .138 5 -.409 .110 -.339 .072 .837

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

From here no more questions can be eliminated and thus the following are the important factors or questions obtained:

1. Residential campus of bimtech is an important criterion for selecting BIMTECH? 2. Availability of residential faculty was a factor for selecting BIMTECH?
3. Past placement statistics was an important factor for selecting BIMTECH?

4. Bimtech's association with Birla group inclined you to choose Bimtech 5. Bimtech's ranking among the top 10 private institutes of the country was a deciding factor 6. Bimtech's featuring in major surveys was a relevant criteria for selecting it 7. BIMTECH syllabus curriculum played an important role for selecting it?
60

8. Internet facilities and various IT facilities provided by BIMTECH 9. Average placement package a Criterion for your choice

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAJOR FINDINGSk The following factors have beenjh identified using Factor Analysis for selecting BIMTECH as against other institutes. Factor1 Residential campus at BIMTECH. Factor2 Availability of residential faculty at bimtech. Factor 3 Past placements Statistics of BIMTECH Factor 4 BIMTECHs Association with Birla group. Factor 5 BIMTECHs ranking among the top ten private institutions. Factor 6 BIMTECHs featuring in major surveys Factor 7 BIMTECHs syllabus and curriculum. Factor 8 Internet facilities and various IT facilities. Factor 9 Average placement package at BIMTECH

61

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The above analysis follows descriptive research design helping us identify the relation between the factors. The factors identified using factor analysis like past placement statistics, internet facilities etc are found to affect the selection of BIMTECH. So, these factors should be improved for selection of BIMTECH as against other institutes.

62

REFERENCES
1. Marketing Research by Naresh Malhotra. 2. SPSS User Guide

63