Free Essay

Factor Analysis

In:

Submitted By khndelwal
Words 6384
Pages 26
Assemblage of factors affecting Success of Fast Moving Consumer Goods

Parmindar Singh1

1 Research Scholar, Department of Commerce, Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa.

Abstract

This paper has mainly focused to the study about the factors which affects on the success of Fast Moving Consumer Goods. Factor analysis is employed on data of 24 items that have main effect on the individual consumer. The major objective of this study is to determine the factors which affects the success of FMCG. The response of the 100 respondents has been selected for the purpose of the study. The findings indicate that factor 4 (v4) is at the top by which consumers make their opinion for use of buying in products with mean value (3.12) which is more effective in the comparison of the low mean value (1.31) of the factor 2 (v6) that is less effective in making the opinion for use of buying the products . Overall the analysis provides an understanding the consumer differ significantly by age, education and income level as consumer wise on intrinsic motivation. The results are important for the group of the consumers in making their purchase decision, companies selling their products and the various parties involve advertiser, investors etc.

1. Introduction

Fast moving consumer goods is also known as consumer packaged goods. The Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) industry in India is one of the largest sectors in the country and it is at present the fourth largest sector with a total market size in excess of USD 13 billion as of 2012. Fast moving consumer goods (FMCGs) are products that are sold quickly at a relatively low cost. FMCG companies have immense possibilities for growth. And if the companies are able to change the mindset of the consumers, i.e. if they are able to take the consumers to branded products and offer new generation products, they would be able to generate higher growth in the near future. The most common things in FMCG are toilet soaps, detergents, shampoos, toothpastes, oils etc. This sector has seen the emergence of new product categories and products that seek to fulfill the increasing aspirations of a new generation of Indians, who are turning out to be very demanding consumers. The volume of money circulated in the economy due to FMCG products is very high, As the number of consumers for such products is very high. Consumers generally put less thought into the purchase of FMCG than they do for other products. Though the absolute profit made on FMCG products is relatively small, they generally sell in large numbers and so the cumulative profit on such products can be large. The fast moving consumer sector with annual revenues of nearly $18 billion, has emerged as a major component of the Indian economy. It has been recording double-digit growth rates over the past few years and continues to expand phenomenally major component. The consumption demand for FMCG products continues to be strong in both local and international markets. Also, the domestic consumption is growing irrespective e of the interest rate cycle and the domestic economic scenario. It has a strong MNC presence and is characterized by a well-established distribution network, intense competition between the organized and unorganized segments and low operational cost. FMCG sector is expected to grow by over 60% by 2010. That will translate into an annual growth of 10% over a 5-year period. It has been estimated that FMCG sector will rise from around Rs. 56,500 crores in 2005 to 92,100 in 2010. As a result, the FMCG sector is expected to do well in the future. Fast moving consumer goods will become a Rs 400,000-crore industry by 2020. Consumption patterns have evolved rapidly in the last five to ten years. The consumer is trading up to experience the new or what he hasn’t. He is looking for products with better functionality, quality, value, and so on. What he ‘needs’ is fast getting replaced with what he ‘wants’. A new report by Booz & Company for the Confederation of Indian industry (CII), called FMCG Roadmap to 2020: The Game Changers, speels out the key growth drivers for the Indian fast moving goods (FMCG) industry in the past ten years and identifies the big trends and factors that will impact its future. Various factors affects the success of FMCG which involves pricing that gives the option to the consumer. Different types of packings are available in the market for the consumer, it is the option for the consumer that which packing he wants big or small that is depend on his purpose of utilization. Online sale of the products of FMCG play a crucial role in the success of it. Any literate consumer purchase the product from online shopping in the domestic as well as international market. Place is the another factor for the success, now we can see that there are huge of traditional shops available here and there for buying the products. Malls, super market are available at the different location in the market. Side-effects and Quality is also the important factor for the success of FMCG. These two factors put a negative and the positive effects on the consumer. Goodwill, Authenticity, Advertisement, Brand are also important factors for the success of FMCG.

Review of literature:-

Dr M. Selvakumar, M. Maria Jansi Rani and K. Jegatheesan (2013), study on the base of market survey, tells about the bright future of FMCG in India. On the basis of market survey they tells about the SWOT analysis of Indian FMCG sector. Vihag Mishra, Atishay Jain, Prashant Sahni (2013) says about the growth drivers and key players in the success of the FMCG. They study on various companies like HUL, ITC, and GODREJ consumer limited. AMBER and Styles (2006) argue that a brand is more than just a product and that is combination of all elements of the marketing mix. Rajeshwari Adappa Thakur says “The sector’s sustained growth has been possible due to continuous and steady improvement in consumer incomes” and also says “As income levels continue to grow more people are likely to shift to consumption of branded products” Leslie de Chernatony, Dr Leif E. Hem and Nina M. Iversen (2001) says the factors influencing the brand extention. Francis Holly Adzah (2011) says about the FMCG and its key factors in the success of the FMCG.

4. Research Methodology -:
Hypothesis-There is no significant effect of demographic variables of consumers on items in the factors related to his opinion making for success of FMCG. The response on 24 items chosen of consumers used generally for opinion making before success of FMCG were collected on 5-point Likert scale from 1 for strongly agree, 2 for agree, 3 for neutral, 4 for disagree and 5 for strongly disagree. The different items in the questions contain in the questionnaire cover the contents of the research significantly. The study is mainly based on primary data collected from the questionnaires The sample size or the response of 100 peoples are collected from the different consumer from the district of Sirsa and Fatehabad. To analysis and interpret mean, standard deviation, factor analysis has been applied. For confirmation of descriptive statistics F-test Statistic is used. The correlation matrix of 24 reaction items which were developed to know the overall opinion making for factors of the success of FMCG. To test the appropriateness of factor analysis technique the correlation between the variables are checked and Keiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sample adequacy is also used for the same. The population correlation matrix is an identity matrix, is rejected by Barlett’s Test of Sphericity. The approximate Chi-square value is 752.811 with 276 degree of freedom, which is significant at 0.05 levels. The value of KMO statistic, .703 is large than 0.6. The extraction communalities for each variable is also calculated which give the average of each variable has been found 0.621 which is the amount of variance , a variable share with all the variables being considered. It is also the proportion of variance explained by the common factors. Theoretically, sample size is enough to calculate factor analysis. The reproduced correlation matrix of overall items in opinion making of factors affecting the success of FMCG has shown that are 120 (43.0%) non redundant residuals with absolute values greater than 0.05, indicating an acceptable model fit.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics | | Mean | Std. Deviation | Analysis N | According to you,which is the place which you like to go for shopping of household consumables(Super market)-V1 | 2.40 | 1.137 | 100 | According to you,which is the place which you like to go for shopping of household consumables(Mall)-V2 | 2.30 | .980 | 100 | According to you,which is the place which you like to go for shopping of household consumables(Traditional shop)-V3 | 1.79 | .808 | 100 | According to you,which is the place which you like to go for shopping of household consumables(E- shopping)-V4 | 3.12 | 1.373 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Price)-V5 | 1.50 | .718 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Quality)-V6 | 1.31 | .662 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Easy availability )-V7 | 1.63 | .691 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Reliability)-V8 | 1.79 | .756 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Quantity)-V9 | 2.15 | .869 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Taste)-V10 | 1.42 | .638 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Internet)-V11 | 2.87 | 1.220 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Environment)-V12 | 2.10 | .732 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Side-effects)-V13 | 1.65 | 1.086 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Place)-V14 | 2.02 | .791 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (After sale service)-V15 | 1.84 | 1.042 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (discounts)-V16 | 1.85 | .903 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Guarantee/Warranty)-V17 | 1.43 | .756 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Life-span)-V18 | 1.83 | .865 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Goodwill)-V19 | 1.60 | .696 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Brand)-V20 | 1.72 | .944 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Weather)-V21 | 2.15 | .757 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Authenticity)-V22 | 2.23 | .941 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Publicity)-V23 | 2.42 | .806 | 100 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Advertisement)-V24 | 2.18 | .833 | 100 |
Source: Primary (Data processed through SPSS 16.0 Version)

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics which gives the value of Mean and Standard deviation make analysis on total sample size (n) is 100. The response on 24 items chosen of consumers used generally for opinion making before success of FMCG were collected on 5-point Likert scale from 1 for strongly agree, 2 for agree, 3 for neutral, 4 for disagree and 5 for strongly disagree. If the value is between (1-1.99) then it comes under the 1st option that is strongly agree, if value is between (2-2.99) then it comes under the 2nd option, value between (3-3.99) then it comes under the 4th option and for the 5th option value is between (4-4.99). There is important thing that which variable has high mean value then it mostly affect the opinion. In the above table variable 4 (E-shopping) is more effective and the variable 6 (Quality) has low mean value is less effective.

Table 2: Correlation matrix

| | V1 | V2 | V3 | V4 | V5 | V6 | V7 | V8 | V9 | V10 | V11 | V12 | V13 | V14 | V15 | V16 | V17 | V18 | V19 | V20 | V21 | V22 | V23 | V24 | l | v1 | 1.000 | .163 | -.139 | .325 | -.087 | .102 | -.080 | -.054 | .194 | -.011 | .184 | .061 | -.147 | .182 | -.056 | -.108 | .068 | .018 | -.038 | .247 | -.094 | -.011 | .145 | .222 | | v2 | .163 | 1.000 | -.060 | .439 | -.029 | .058 | -.058 | -.050 | .077 | .039 | .244 | .056 | -.081 | -.099 | .067 | -.006 | .151 | -.082 | -.044 | .059 | .061 | -.010 | -.020 | -.005 | | v3 | -.139 | -.060 | 1.000 | -.132 | .200 | .085 | .149 | .076 | -.055 | .232 | -.172 | -.135 | .065 | .086 | .044 | .136 | .100 | .093 | -.043 | -.025 | -.064 | -.122 | -.220 | -.183 | | v4 | .325 | .439 | -.132 | 1.000 | -.062 | -.086 | .047 | .015 | -.015 | -.185 | .504 | .028 | -.154 | -.142 | -.050 | -.132 | -.031 | -.085 | -.108 | .011 | -.066 | -.108 | .255 | .272 | | v5 | -.087 | -.029 | .200 | -.062 | 1.000 | .244 | .254 | .177 | .219 | .309 | -.144 | .038 | .305 | -.053 | .324 | .382 | .456 | .041 | .141 | .060 | .084 | -.052 | -.192 | -.236 | | v6 | .102 | .058 | .085 | -.086 | .244 | 1.000 | .010 | .192 | .252 | .406 | -.062 | .269 | .237 | .219 | .351 | .180 | .397 | .305 | .294 | .173 | .229 | .079 | -.114 | .026 | | v7 | -.080 | -.058 | .149 | .047 | .254 | .010 | 1.000 | .294 | .245 | .127 | .038 | .074 | .149 | .198 | .212 | .250 | .056 | .012 | .130 | .010 | .126 | .117 | -.117 | -.129 | | v8 | -.054 | -.050 | .076 | .015 | .177 | .192 | .294 | 1.000 | .464 | .268 | -.085 | .203 | .242 | .125 | .329 | .013 | .071 | .300 | .376 | .242 | .179 | .239 | -.102 | -.148 | | v9 | .194 | .077 | -.055 | -.015 | .219 | .252 | .245 | .464 | 1.000 | .431 | .076 | .437 | .281 | .436 | .317 | .132 | .239 | .370 | .384 | .434 | .273 | .143 | -.048 | -.177 | | v10 | -.011 | .039 | .232 | -.185 | .309 | .406 | .127 | .268 | .431 | 1.000 | -.085 | .234 | .214 | .183 | .269 | .198 | .292 | .368 | .382 | .365 | .286 | .291 | -.130 | -.049 | | v11 | .184 | .244 | -.172 | .504 | -.144 | -.062 | .038 | -.085 | .076 | -.085 | 1.000 | .230 | -.103 | -.008 | -.009 | -.165 | .072 | -.069 | .021 | .091 | .076 | -.018 | .169 | .222 | | v12 | .061 | .056 | -.135 | .028 | .038 | .269 | .074 | .203 | .437 | .234 | .230 | 1.000 | .210 | .119 | .366 | .191 | .196 | .394 | .238 | .304 | .374 | .201 | -.089 | -.179 | | v13 | -.147 | -.081 | .065 | -.154 | .305 | .237 | .149 | .242 | .281 | .214 | -.103 | .210 | 1.000 | -.062 | .173 | .100 | .173 | .269 | .120 | .120 | .212 | .178 | -.373 | -.276 | | v14 | .182 | -.099 | .086 | -.142 | -.053 | .219 | .198 | .125 | .436 | .183 | -.008 | .119 | -.062 | 1.000 | .237 | .131 | .070 | .271 | .345 | .305 | .214 | .102 | .145 | .040 | | v15 | -.056 | .067 | .044 | -.050 | .324 | .351 | .212 | .329 | .317 | .269 | -.009 | .366 | .173 | .237 | 1.000 | .511 | .512 | .362 | .426 | .211 | .274 | .265 | .045 | -.141 | | v16 | -.108 | -.006 | .136 | -.132 | .382 | .180 | .250 | .013 | .132 | .198 | -.165 | .191 | .100 | .131 | .511 | 1.000 | .436 | .213 | .128 | .021 | .225 | .077 | .060 | -.058 | | v17 | .068 | .151 | .100 | -.031 | .456 | .397 | .056 | .071 | .239 | .292 | .072 | .196 | .173 | .070 | .512 | .436 | 1.000 | .252 | .196 | .142 | .186 | -.069 | -.117 | -.156 | | v18 | .018 | -.082 | .093 | -.085 | .041 | .305 | .012 | .300 | .370 | .368 | -.069 | .394 | .269 | .271 | .362 | .213 | .252 | 1.000 | .305 | .374 | .425 | .272 | -.128 | -.223 | | v19 | -.038 | -.044 | -.043 | -.108 | .141 | .294 | .130 | .376 | .384 | .382 | .021 | .238 | .120 | .345 | .426 | .128 | .196 | .305 | 1.000 | .520 | .307 | .265 | .068 | .021 | | v20 | .247 | .059 | -.025 | .011 | .060 | .173 | .010 | .242 | .434 | .365 | .091 | .304 | .120 | .305 | .211 | .021 | .142 | .374 | .520 | 1.000 | .201 | .153 | .010 | .001 | | v21 | -.094 | .061 | -.064 | -.066 | .084 | .229 | .126 | .179 | .273 | .286 | .076 | .374 | .212 | .214 | .274 | .225 | .186 | .425 | .307 | .201 | 1.000 | .305 | -.137 | -.091 | | v22 | -.011 | -.010 | -.122 | -.108 | -.052 | .079 | .117 | .239 | .143 | .291 | -.018 | .201 | .178 | .102 | .265 | .077 | -.069 | .272 | .265 | .153 | .305 | 1.000 | -.075 | .037 | | v23 | .145 | -.020 | -.220 | .255 | -.192 | -.114 | -.117 | -.102 | -.048 | -.130 | .169 | -.089 | -.373 | .145 | .045 | .060 | -.117 | -.128 | .068 | .010 | -.137 | -.075 | 1.000 | .623 | | v24 | .222 | -.005 | -.183 | .272 | -.236 | .026 | -.129 | -.148 | -.177 | -.049 | .222 | -.179 | -.276 | .040 | -.141 | -.058 | -.156 | -.223 | .021 | .001 | -.091 | .037 | .623 | 1.000 |

Table 2 is correlation matrix which tells about the correlation with each variable. The interior portion of the table contains correlation coefficients for all pairs of variables. Values along the diagonal, which represent associations between each variable and itself, equal +1.00. This diagonal also serves as a line of symmetry. Correlation matrix contains correlation coefficients as well as significance values and sample sizes for the data used to analyze each pair of variables. This table gives the correlations between the original variables (which are specified on the /variables subcommand). Before conducting a principal components analysis, we want to check the correlations between the variables. There should be at least 3 items which show the value above 0.3. There are 24 variables in this table and there are 22 items that has value above the 0.3. So, we can say that this table fulfill the condition.

Table 3: KMO and Bartlett's Test | Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. | .703 | Bartlett's Test of Sphericity | Approx. Chi-Square | 752.811 | | Df | 276 | | Sig. | .000 | Source: Primary (Data processed through SPSS 16.0 Version)Table 3 shows the value of KMO (Keiser-Meyer-Olkin) and Barlett’s test. This table shows two tests that indicate the suitability of the data in making the structure detection. This table measure the sample adequacy of the data that the value is according to the sample or not.. In this table we find the value of Chi- Square is approx. 752.811 at the degree of freedom of 276 and the significant value is .000. The KMO value should be greater than 0.6 if sample is adequate, in this table KMO value is .703 which is greater than 0.6. so we can say that the sample is adequate. These tests provide a minimum standard which should be passed before a principal components analysis (or a factor analysis) should be conducted. Table 4: Communalities | | Extraction | According to you,which is the place which you like to go for shopping of household consumables(Super market)-V1 | .542 | According to you,which is the place which you like to go for shopping of household consumables(Mall)-V2 | .496 | According to you,which is the place which you like to go for shopping of household consumables(Traditional shop)-V3 | .426 | According to you,which is the place which you like to go for shopping of household consumables(E- shopping)-V4 | .746 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Price)-V5 | .650 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Quality)-V6 | .544 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Easy availability )-V7 | .735 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Reliability)-V8 | .610 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Quantity)-V9 | .681 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Taste)-V10 | .618 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Internet)-V11 | .574 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Environment)-V12 | .621 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Side-effects)-V13 | .489 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Place)-V14 | .721 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (After sale service)-V15 | .678 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (discounts)-V16 | .733 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Guarantee/Warranty)-V17 | .723 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Life-span)-V18 | .565 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Goodwill)-V19 | .575 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Brand)-V20 | .579 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Weather)-V21 | .515 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Authenticity)-V22 | .583 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Publicity)-V23 | .749 | To what extent the underwritten parameters affect your buying decisions in FMCG (Advertisement)-V24 | .774 | Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.Source: Primary (Data processed through SPSS 16.0 Version). |
Table 4 – communalities shows that the each variable divide the variation with each other. Communalities are for correlation analyses, the proportion of variance accounted for in each variable by the rest of the variables. This is the proportion of each variable's variance that can be explained by the principal components The extraction communalities for each variable is also calculated which give the average of each variable has been found 0.621 which is the amount of variance , a variable share with all the variables being considered. Variables with high values are well represented in the common factor space, while variables with low values are not well represented. They are the reproduced variances from the number of components that we have saved. we can find these values on the diagonal of the reproduced correlation matrix

Table 5: Total Variance Explained | Component | Initial Eigenvalues | Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings | Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings | | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | 1 | 5.011 | 20.878 | 20.878 | 5.011 | 20.878 | 20.878 | 2.540 | 10.584 | 10.584 | 2 | 2.669 | 11.120 | 31.998 | 2.669 | 11.120 | 31.998 | 2.374 | 9.891 | 20.475 | 3 | 1.848 | 7.699 | 39.697 | 1.848 | 7.699 | 39.697 | 2.214 | 9.225 | 29.700 | 4 | 1.662 | 6.926 | 46.623 | 1.662 | 6.926 | 46.623 | 2.121 | 8.838 | 38.538 | 5 | 1.346 | 5.607 | 52.230 | 1.346 | 5.607 | 52.230 | 2.069 | 8.621 | 47.160 | 6 | 1.317 | 5.489 | 57.719 | 1.317 | 5.489 | 57.719 | 2.041 | 8.505 | 55.665 | 7 | 1.073 | 4.469 | 62.188 | 1.073 | 4.469 | 62.188 | 1.566 | 6.523 | 62.188 | 8 | .988 | 4.116 | 66.304 | | | | | | | 9 | .875 | 3.645 | 69.949 | | | | | | | 10 | .843 | 3.514 | 73.464 | | | | | | | 11 | .787 | 3.281 | 76.744 | | | | | | | 12 | .746 | 3.107 | 79.852 | | | | | | | 13 | .660 | 2.750 | 82.601 | | | | | | | 14 | .642 | 2.674 | 85.275 | | | | | | | 15 | .573 | 2.389 | 87.664 | | | | | | | 16 | .533 | 2.220 | 89.885 | | | | | | | 17 | .442 | 1.843 | 91.727 | | | | | | | 18 | .414 | 1.724 | 93.452 | | | | | | | 19 | .322 | 1.342 | 94.794 | | | | | | | 20 | .311 | 1.297 | 96.091 | | | | | | | 21 | .262 | 1.090 | 97.180 | | | | | | | 22 | .247 | 1.028 | 98.209 | | | | | | | 23 | .219 | .912 | 99.120 | | | | | | | 24 | .211 | .880 | 100.000 | | | | | | | Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.Source: Primary (Data processed through SPSS 16.0 Version) | | | | | | |
Table 5 is the total variance explained table, there are as many components extracted during a principal components analysis as there are variables that are put into it. Eigen values are the variances of the principal components. Because we conducted our principal components analysis on the correlation matrix, the variables are standardized. This column contains the eigenvalues. The first component will always account for the most variance (and hence have the highest eigenvalue), and the next component will account for as much of the left over variance as it can, and so on. Hence, each successive component will account for less and less variance. The column of % Variance contains the percent of variance accounted for by each principal component. .The column of Cumulative % - contains the cumulative percentage of variance accounted for by the current and all preceding principal components. For example, the eight row shows a value of 66.304. This means that the first eight components together account for 66.304% of the total variance. (Remember that because this is principal components analysis, all variance is considered to be true and common variance. In other words, the variables are assumed to be measured without error, so there is no error variance.) . In the Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings, three columns of this half of the table exactly reproduce the values given on the same row on the left side of the table.

The scree plot graphs the eigenvalue against the component number. You can see these values in the first six columns of the table immediately above. From the seventh component on, we can see that the line is almost flat, meaning the each successive component is accounting for smaller and smaller amounts of the total variance. In general, we are interested in keeping only those principal components whose eigenvalues are greater than 1. Components with an eigenvalue of less than 1 account for less variance than did the original variable (which had a variance of 1), and so are of little use. Hence, we can see that the point of principal components analysis is to redistribute the variance in the correlation matrix (using the method of eigenvalue decomposition) to redistribute the variance to first components extracted

Table 6 : Component Pattern | Component | Rotated Component Matrix | Reaction items | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | v1 | -.014 | .550 | .113 | -.050 | .392 | -.242 | -.108 | -.094 | .093 | .156 | .445 | -.182 | .472 | -.214 | v2 | .000 | .340 | .475 | -.363 | .020 | -.073 | .128 | .105 | .071 | -.075 | .675 | -.004 | -.082 | -.107 | v3 | .138 | -.418 | .139 | .164 | .431 | .007 | .015 | .192 | .147 | -.248 | -.231 | -.478 | .065 | .142 | v4 | -.196 | .594 | .437 | -.292 | .085 | .242 | .111 | -.063 | -.075 | .210 | .818 | -.053 | -.044 | .135 | v5 | .437 | -.347 | .496 | .121 | .158 | .118 | .199 | .581 | .314 | -.242 | .012 | -.258 | -.144 | .260 | v6 | .543 | .050 | .163 | .122 | .058 | -.381 | .237 | .392 | .560 | -.060 | .020 | .051 | .148 | -.218 | v7 | .316 | -.111 | .113 | .032 | .162 | .751 | -.138 | .196 | -.066 | -.087 | .012 | -.030 | .096 | .821 | v8 | .526 | .017 | -.197 | -.137 | .207 | .416 | .244 | -.057 | .468 | -.138 | .003 | .146 | .130 | .575 | v9 | .677 | .250 | -.092 | -.142 | .301 | .113 | -.165 | .119 | .343 | -.203 | .149 | .192 | .593 | .312 | v10 | .645 | -.012 | -.052 | .083 | .173 | -.162 | .369 | .223 | .722 | -.096 | -.089 | .065 | .154 | .050 | v11 | -.069 | .596 | .267 | -.322 | -.085 | .159 | -.081 | -.053 | -.149 | .144 | .687 | .208 | .091 | .062 | v12 | .544 | .246 | -.007 | -.318 | -.285 | -.074 | -.278 | .212 | .059 | -.248 | .211 | .607 | .313 | -.004 | v13 | .451 | -.329 | -.014 | -.356 | -.040 | .020 | .218 | .088 | .370 | -.505 | -.047 | .197 | -.152 | .157 | v14 | .403 | .272 | -.285 | .359 | .280 | .030 | -.441 | .111 | .034 | .179 | -.217 | .063 | .774 | .160 | v15 | .679 | .060 | .264 | .234 | -.270 | .115 | -.059 | .667 | .217 | .042 | -.010 | .344 | .135 | .219 | v16 | .444 | -.162 | .407 | .439 | -.316 | .095 | -.205 | .807 | -.065 | .082 | -.175 | .141 | .013 | .141 | v17 | .521 | -.045 | .599 | .133 | -.043 | -.260 | -.051 | .768 | .215 | -.162 | .174 | -.020 | .098 | -.142 | v18 | .645 | .054 | -.212 | -.099 | -.115 | -.231 | -.156 | .189 | .299 | -.246 | -.127 | .457 | .385 | -.074 | v19 | .612 | .247 | -.249 | .193 | .028 | .066 | .187 | .124 | .534 | .174 | -.107 | .297 | .313 | .218 | v20 | .512 | .380 | -.233 | -.050 | .286 | -.181 | .023 | -.050 | .480 | -.007 | .110 | .164 | .554 | -.011 | V21 | .541 | .100 | -.116 | -.152 | -.408 | -.014 | -.096 | .220 | .153 | -.140 | -.018 | .637 | .123 | .050 | v22 | .366 | .110 | -.377 | -.091 | -.386 | .171 | .330 | -.114 | .374 | .090 | -.121 | .589 | -.140 | .203 | v23 | -.232 | .579 | .002 | .568 | -.131 | .129 | .049 | .042 | -.099 | .848 | .089 | .010 | .102 | -.002 | v24 | -.293 | .574 | -.029 | .457 | -.096 | .025 | .374 | -.111 | .140 | .835 | .155 | -.040 | -.091 | -.103 | Source: Primary (Data processed through SPSS 16.0 Version) Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Table 6 component pattern shows that the various values of the component matrix and the rotation component matrix. component matrix contains component loadings, which are the correlations between the variable and the component. Because these are correlations, possible values range from -1 to +1.Component matrix contains the loading of each variable on to each other. The component matrix indicates how each item in the analysis correlate with each of the 7 retained factors. This matrix is not particularly used for interpretation. The interpretability of the factors can be improved trough rotation. The rotation matrix gives us a clear indication how much items correlates with each other. Rotation matrix maximizing the loading of each variable on one of the extracted factors at the same time as minimizing the loading on all other factors. The purpose of rotation is to simplify the structure of the analysis, so that the each factor will have nonzero loadings for only some of the variables without affecting the communalities and the percent of variance explained.

Table 7: Reproduced Correlation Reaction Items | V1 | V2 | V3 | V4 | V5 | V6 | V8 | V9 | V10 | V11 | V12 | V13 | V14 | V15 | V16 | V17 | V18 | V19 | V20 | V21 | V22 | V23 | V24 | v1 | .542a | .271 | -.059 | .356 | -.135 | .122 | -.059 | .233 | .042 | .312 | .079 | -.215 | .243 | -.086 | -.196 | .081 | .029 | .065 | .331 | -.105 | -.211 | .206 | .210 | v2 | .271 | .496a | -.125 | .514 | .094 | .109 | -.033 | .069 | .003 | .422 | .160 | .036 | -.227 | .039 | -.061 | .232 | -.052 | -.085 | .059 | .014 | -.087 | -.015 | .059 | v3 | -.059 | -.125 | .426a | -.222 | .366 | .122 | .112 | .080 | .179 | -.311 | -.208 | .125 | .075 | .027 | .119 | .175 | -.033 | -.007 | -.007 | -.186 | -.223 | -.235 | -.245 | v4 | .356 | .514 | -.222 | .746a | -.047 | -.102 | .006 | .051 | -.165 | .600 | .056 | -.161 | -.165 | -.052 | -.161 | .021 | -.241 | -.099 | .021 | -.102 | -.099 | .250 | .291 | v5 | -.135 | .094 | .366 | -.047 | .650a | .327 | .240 | .174 | .352 | -.155 | .001 | .301 | -.056 | .394 | .425 | .509 | .069 | .131 | .000 | .040 | -.051 | -.228 | -.224 | v6 | .122 | .109 | .122 | -.102 | .327 | .544a | .150 | .283 | .511 | -.089 | .213 | .224 | .130 | .370 | .250 | .479 | .351 | .349 | .344 | .220 | .122 | -.072 | -.005 | v7 | -.158 | -.065 | .184 | .092 | .323 | -.121 | .450 | .328 | .058 | .049 | .070 | .145 | .206 | .296 | .266 | .046 | .000 | .173 | .000 | .078 | .079 | -.050 | -.194 | v8 | -.059 | -.033 | .112 | .006 | .240 | .150 | .610a | .467 | .396 | -.006 | .177 | .337 | .186 | .252 | .015 | .008 | .237 | .428 | .318 | .216 | .353 | -.152 | -.120 | v9 | .233 | .069 | .080 | .051 | .174 | .283 | .467 | .681a | .400 | .129 | .427 | .229 | .477 | .358 | .109 | .234 | .449 | .457 | .533 | .315 | .172 | -.126 | -.205 | v10 | .042 | .003 | .179 | -.165 | .352 | .511 | .396 | .400 | .618a | -.163 | .182 | .336 | .182 | .356 | .158 | .333 | .378 | .484 | .421 | .237 | .274 | -.135 | -.039 | v11 | .312 | .422 | -.311 | .600 | -.155 | -.089 | -.006 | .129 | -.163 | .574a | .244 | -.128 | -.041 | .030 | -.102 | .020 | -.052 | -.030 | .090 | .080 | .002 | .207 | .189 | v12 | .079 | .160 | -.208 | .056 | .001 | .213 | .177 | .427 | .182 | .244 | .621a | .227 | .215 | .392 | .199 | .272 | .490 | .269 | .315 | .511 | .263 | -.150 | -.242 | v13 | -.215 | .036 | .125 | -.161 | .301 | .224 | .337 | .229 | .336 | -.128 | .227 | .489a | -.138 | .200 | .061 | .179 | .278 | .171 | .117 | .262 | .258 | -.479 | -.398 | v14 | .243 | -.227 | .075 | -.165 | -.056 | .130 | .186 | .477 | .182 | -.041 | .215 | -.138 | .721a | .253 | .181 | .078 | .329 | .382 | .423 | .151 | .004 | .213 | .019 | v15 | -.086 | .039 | .027 | -.052 | .394 | .370 | .252 | .358 | .356 | .030 | .392 | .200 | .253 | .678a | .610 | .525 | .375 | .399 | .198 | .421 | .239 | .058 | -.059 | v16 | -.196 | -.061 | .119 | -.161 | .425 | .250 | .015 | .109 | .158 | -.102 | .199 | .061 | .181 | .610 | .733a | .541 | .194 | .174 | -.063 | .258 | .022 | .097 | -.078 | v17 | .081 | .232 | .175 | .021 | .509 | .479 | .008 | .234 | .333 | .020 | .272 | .179 | .078 | .525 | .541 | .723a | .267 | .157 | .137 | .214 | -.097 | -.101 | -.157 | v18 | .029 | -.052 | -.033 | -.241 | .069 | .351 | .237 | .449 | .378 | -.052 | .490 | .278 | .329 | .375 | .194 | .267 | .565a | .394 | .411 | .459 | .284 | -.198 | -.250 | v19 | .065 | -.085 | -.007 | -.099 | .131 | .349 | .428 | .457 | .484 | -.030 | .269 | .171 | .382 | .399 | .174 | .157 | .394 | .575a | .456 | .325 | .390 | .125 | .127 | v20 | .331 | .059 | -.007 | .021 | .000 | .344 | .318 | .533 | .421 | .090 | .315 | .117 | .423 | .198 | -.063 | .137 | .411 | .456 | .579a | .233 | .188 | .013 | .028 | V21 | -.105 | .014 | -.186 | -.102 | .040 | .220 | .216 | .315 | .237 | .080 | .511 | .262 | .151 | .421 | .258 | .214 | .459 | .325 | .233 | .515a | .390 | -.107 | -.164 | v22 | -.211 | -.087 | -.223 | -.099 | -.051 | .122 | .353 | .172 | .274 | .002 | .263 | .258 | .004 | .239 | .022 | -.097 | .284 | .390 | .188 | .390 | .583a | .015 | .090 | v23 | .206 | -.015 | -.235 | .250 | -.228 | -.072 | -.152 | -.126 | -.135 | .207 | -.150 | -.479 | .213 | .058 | .097 | -.101 | -.198 | .125 | .013 | -.107 | .015 | .749a | .694 | v24 | .210 | .059 | -.245 | .291 | -.224 | -.005 | -.120 | -.205 | -.039 | .189 | -.242 | -.398 | .019 | -.059 | -.078 | -.157 | -.250 | .127 | .028 | -.164 | .090 | .694 | .774a |

Source: Primary (Data processed through SPSS 16.0 Version)
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
a) Reproduced communalities.
b) Residuals are computed between observed and reproduced correlations. There are 120 (43.0%) nonredundant residuals with absolute values greater than 0.05
Table 7 is the reproduced correlation which contains two tables, the reproduced correlations in the top part of the table, and the residuals in the bottom part of the table. The difference between the reproduced correlation matrix and the original correlation matrix is the residual matrix.The reproduced correlation matrix is the correlation matrix based on the extracted components. The reproduced correlation matrix of overall items in opinion making of factors affecting the success of FMCG has shown that are 120 (43.0%) non redundant residuals with absolute values greater than 0.05, indicating an acceptable model fit

Table 8: Component Transformation Matrix | Component | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 1 | .489 | .563 | -.274 | -.076 | .389 | .384 | .254 | 2 | -.159 | .081 | .584 | .623 | .265 | .404 | -.075 | 3 | .692 | -.139 | -.073 | .565 | -.337 | -.251 | -.039 | 4 | .409 | .017 | .694 | -.513 | -.269 | .122 | .000 | 5 | -.236 | .257 | -.172 | .101 | -.762 | .479 | .171 | 6 | -.069 | -.212 | .144 | .072 | .042 | -.155 | .948 | 7 | -.172 | .739 | .216 | .092 | -.105 | -.598 | .020 | Source: Primary (Data processed through SPSS 16.0 Version) Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. | | |

Table 9: Overall Items Variation Explained in Factor-Wise SERIAL NO. | FACTOR | COFF. VALUE | NAME OF ITEM | 1 | PRICE AND PROMOTION(20.878) | .581 | PRICE (V5) | 2 | | .667 | AFTER SALE SERVICE(V15) | 3 | | .807 | DISCOUNT(V16) | 4 | | .768 | GUARANTEE /WARANTEE(V17) | 5 | PRODUCT ACKNOWLEDGE(11.120) | .560 | QUALITY(V6) | 6 | | .722 | TASTE(V10) | 7 | | .534 | GOODWILL(V19) | 8 | KNOWLEDGE THROUGH PROMOTION(7.699) | .505 | SIDE EFFECTS(V13) | 9 | | .848 | PUBLICITY(V23) | 10 | | .835 | ADVERTISEMENT(V24) | 11 | E COMMERCE FACILITY(6.926) | .675 | MALL (V2) | 12 | | .818 | E SHOPPING(V4) | 13 | | .687 | INTERNET(V11) | 14 | ENVIRONMENT FACILITY(5.607) | .478 | TRADITIONAL SHOP(V3) | 15 | | .607 | ENVIRONMENT(V12) | 16 | | .457 | LIFE SPAN(V18) | 17 | | .637 | WEATHER(V21) | 18 | | .589 | AUTHENTICITY(V22) | 19 | MARKETING MIX FACILITY(5.489) | .472 | SUPER MARKET(V1) | 20 | | .593 | QUANTITY(V9) | 21 | | .774 | PLACE(V14) | 22 | | .554 | BRAND(V20) | 23 | POSITIVE DISTRIBUTION(4.469) | .821 | EASY AVALABILITY(V7) | 24 | | .575 | RELIABILITY(V8) |
Source: Primary (Data processed through SPSS 16.0 Version)

Table 10: Overall confirmation of factors affecting success of FMCG by demographic variable

Factors | | Gender | Age | Edu. Qual. | Income | | MEAN | S.D. | F-value | Sigvalue | F-value | Sigvalue | F-value | Sigvalue | F-value | Sig value | PRICE AND PROMOTIONPrice(V5) After sale service(V15)Discount(V16) Guarantee /Warrantee(V17) | (1.655) | .854 | 15.652 | .000* | 2.650 | .053 | 1.234 | .302 | 1.872 | .140 | | 1.50 | .718 | 10.349 | .002* | 2.202 | .093 | .642 | .634 | .617 | .606 | | 1.84 | 1.042 | 6.240 | .014* | 1.921 | .131 | 1.184 | .323 | 1.710 | .170 | | 1.85 | .903 | 9.169 | .003* | 1.781 | .156 | 1.029 | .397 | .596 | .619 | | 1.43 | .756 | 8.845 | .004* | .770 | .513 | .495 | .740 | 2.893 | .039 | PRODUCT ACKNOWLEDGE Quality(V6) Taste(V10) Goodwill(19) | (1.443) | .499 | .582 | .447 | .780 | .508 | .843 | .501 | 2.378 | .075 | | 1.31 | .662 | .976 | .326 | .492 | .689 | .290 | .884 | .758 | .521 | | 1.42 | .638 | .045* | .832 | .317 | .813 | 1.590 | .183 | 2.380 | .074 | | 1.60 | .696 | 1.077 | .302 | .960 | .415 | .811 | .521 | 1.212 | .310 | KNOWLEDGE THROUGH PROMOTION Side effects(V13)Publicity(23)Advertisement(24) | (2.083) | .681 | 2.359 | .128 | 3.508 | .018* | 3.261 | .015* | 2.087 | .107 | | 1.65 | 1.086 | 2.155 | .145 | .874 | .458 | 2.507 | .047* | .229 | .876 | | 2.42 | .806 | .173 | .678 | 2.489 | .065 | 1.801 | .135 | 1.170 | .325 | | 2.18 | .833 | 3.543 | .063 | 3.732 | .014* | 2.133 | .083 | 3.518 | .018* | E COMMERCE FACILITYMall(V2) E Shopping(V4) Internet(V11) | (2.763) | .893 | 4.625 | .034* | 2.744 | .047* | 2.357 | .059 | 1.392 | .250 | | 2.30 | .980 | .427 | .515 | .650 | .585 | .785 | .538 | .975 | .408 | | 3.12 | 1.373 | .263 | .609 | 2.248 | .088 | 3.958 | .005* | 1.847 | .144 | | 2.87 | 1.220 | 2.208 | .140 | 4.049 | .009* | 3.587 | .009* | .139 | .936 | ENVIRONMENT FACILITYTraditional shop(V3)Environment(V12) Life span(V18) Weather(V21) Authenticity(V22) | (2.02) | .102 | .602 | .440 | 1.132 | .340 | 6.537 | .000* | .665 | .575 | | 1.79 | .808 | 5.635 | .020* | .230 | .875 | .842 | .502 | 3.293 | .024* | | 2.10 | .732 | 3.354 | .070 | 2.775 | .046 | 1.697 | .157 | .191 | .902 | | 1.83 | .865 | 2.076 | .153 | .210 | .889 | 3.953 | .005* | 1.759 | .160 | | 2.15 | .757 | .001* | .979 | 1.387 | .252 | 6.917 | .000* | 1.461 | .230 | | 2.23 | .941 | .529 | .469 | 2.814 | .043* | 2.755 | .032 | 1.552 | .206 | MARKETING MIX FACILITYSuper market(V1) Quantity(V9) Place(V14)Brand(20) | (2.763) | .935 | .829 | .365 | .492 | .689 | 2.290 | .065 | .203 | .894 | | 2.40 | 1.137 | .976 | .326 | .529 | .664 | 1.670 | .163 | 1.132 | .340 | | 2.15 | .869 | 5.461 | .021* | .941 | .424 | 3.418 | .012* | .552 | .648 | | 2.02 | .791 | .074 | .786 | .382 | .766 | 1.469 | .218 | .328 | .805 | | 1.72 | .944 | .766 | .384 | 1.075 | .363 | 1.458 | .221 | .117 | .950 | POSITIVE DISTRIBUTIONEasy availability(V7)Reliability(V8) | (1.71) | .361 | 14.315 | .000* | 3.042 | .033* | 2.427 | .053 | .407 | .748 | | 1.63 | .691 | 16.401 | .000* | 1.159 | .329 | 1.267 | .288 | 1.064 | .368 | | 1.79 | .756 | 3.906 | .051 | 3.208 | .027* | 1.807 | .134 | .266 | .850 |
Source: Primary (Data processed through SPSS 16.0 Version)
The findings indicate that factor 4 (v4) is at the top by which consumers make their opinion for use of buying in products with mean value (3.12) which is more effective in the comparison of the low mean value (1.31) of the factor 2 (v6) that is less effective in making the opinion for use of buying the products

5. Disscussions and Suggestions-: It is found that
Further area of research
References

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Factor Analysis

...Factor Analysis in SPSS To conduct a Factor Analysis, start from the “Analyze” menu. This procedure is intended to reduce the complexity in a set of data, so we choose “Data Reduction” from the menu. And the choice in this category is “Factor,” for factor analysis. This dataset gives children’s scores on subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III). The Wechsler scales are scored to give you a “verbal” and a “performance” IQ. The question is whether we can reproduce the verbal vs. nonverbal distinction, with the appropriate subtests grouping into each category, using factor analysis. This dialog box will appear: Factor analysis has no IVs and DVs, so everything you want to get factors for just goes into the list labeled “variables.” In this case, it’s all the variables. In some datasets, there is also a dummy “subject number” variable included. Be sure that you don’t include subject number as one of the variables for your factor analysis! To do a factor analysis, we need to select an “extraction method” and a “rotation method.” Hit the “Extraction” button to specify your extraction method. In this dialog box, you can make a number of selections. First, I want you to un-check the box labeled “Unrotated factor solution.” This is a default setting for your printout, but it just gives you information that you don’t need, and that may distract you from the real answers. So, always go into the Extraction sub-dialog and un-check this...

Words: 1516 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Factor Analysis

...Chapter 14 Factor analysis 14.1 INTRODUCTION Factor analysis is a method for investigating whether a number of variables of interest Y1 , Y2 , : : :, Yl, are linearly related to a smaller number of unobservable factors F1, F2, : : :, Fk . The fact that the factors are not observable disquali¯es regression and other methods previously examined. We shall see, however, that under certain conditions the hypothesized factor model has certain implications, and these implications in turn can be tested against the observations. Exactly what these conditions and implications are, and how the model can be tested, must be explained with some care. 14.2 AN EXAMPLE Factor analysis is best explained in the context of a simple example. Students entering a certain MBA program must take three required courses in ¯nance, marketing and business policy. Let Y1, Y2 , and Y3 , respectively, represent a student's grades in these courses. The available data consist of the grades of ¯ve students (in a 10-point numerical scale above the passing mark), as shown in Table 14.1. Table 14.1 Student grades Student no. 1 2 3 4 5 Finance, Y1 3 7 10 3 10 Grade in: Marketing, Y2 6 3 9 9 6 Policy, Y3 5 3 8 7 5 °Peter Tryfos, 1997. This version printed: 14-3-2001. c 2 Chapter 14: Factor analysis It has been suggested that these grades are functions of two underlying factors, F1 and F2, tentatively and rather loosely described as quantitative ability and verbal ability, respectively. It is...

Words: 6747 - Pages: 27

Premium Essay

External Factor Analysis Sample

...IV. External Analysis A. General Environment B. Industry and Competitor Analysis C. Summary and Conclusion Critical Success Factors |CSF |Assigned Weight |CSF Importance to the Industry | | | | | |Length of service in the industry |0.10 |Years of experience as a key factor to | | | |success makes an impression which affects | | | |clients' preferences in choosing which | | | |product supplier or service provider has | | | |deeper understanding on such industry. The | | | |more years of experience an enterprise has, | | | |the more credibility it earns. | |Strong online presence |0.05 |It is a factor which calls the attention of | | | |the clients. It also serves as an | | ...

Words: 385 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Exploratory Factor Analysis Essay

...Step 3: Conducting an Exploratory Factor Analysis Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is a technique to find the latent variable(s) that is being manifested by a set of observable variables. In our research, EFA was used with the objective to find if our latent variable had multiple dimensions or not (Williams, Onsman, & Brown, 2010). An important assumption of EFA is that observed variables should be multivariate normal 14. However this assumption was violated for our data. If multivariate normality assumption is violated then it is recommended to use the “Principal axis factors” method which is also known as “Principal Factor” as appose to the Maximum Likelihood factor analysis method (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). The difference between these two methods lies in the differences between the discrepancy function that they minimize (See Appendix)....

Words: 399 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Factor Analysis

...report Preliminary analysis Since the data of all variables are non-metric and ordinal, there is no appropriate preliminary analysis can be performed. The descriptive statistics of the variable (table 1) below show that most respondent’s answers falls between 3 to 4 and close to 4 which denote the perception of neutral to agree. That is, most answers are positive indicating the students are not on average dissatisfy with the teaching of the subject. Figure 1 | |N |Mean |Std. Deviation | |The tutorials are useful and |434 |4.09 |.922 | |relevant | | | | |The tutor is well prepared |436 |4.11 |.962 | |The tutor is knowledgeable |432 |4.19 |.807 | |The tutor is approachable |432 |4.31 |.825 | |The tutor is readily available for |434 |3.93 |.989 | |consultation with students | | | | |In this tutorial I feel free to ask|433 |4.26 |.780 | |questions | | | | |The tutor encourages students to |435 |3.77 |.916 | |think for themselves...

Words: 2766 - Pages: 12

Premium Essay

Factor Analysis

...Regression with Categorical Predictors Using Personality Inventory variables and perform two factor analysis, one using unrotated solution, and another using rotated orthogonal solution. Q1. Are the communalities the same using either method? Factor Analysis 1 – Unrotated Solution Communalities | | Initial | Extraction | Beck's Depression Inventory | 1.000 | .666 | measures the extent to which a person is impulsive the higher the value the more impulsive the person is | 1.000 | .643 | Rotter Locus of Control Measure | 1.000 | .666 | Life Optimism Test | 1.000 | .798 | indicator for whether the South Oaks Gambling Screen suggests that the person is a probable pathological gambler | 1.000 | .654 | Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. | Factor Analysis 2 – Rotated Orthogonal Solution Communalities | | Initial | Extraction | Beck's Depression Inventory | 1.000 | .666 | measures the extent to which a person is impulsive the higher the value the more impulsive the person is | 1.000 | .643 | Rotter Locus of Control Measure | 1.000 | .666 | Life Optimism Test | 1.000 | .798 | indicator for whether the South Oaks Gambling Screen suggests that the person is a probable pathological gambler | 1.000 | .654 | Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. | Yes; the communalites are the same. Q2: Using unrotated solution, for the first factor, calculate extraction communalities from component matrix. Component Matrixa | |...

Words: 670 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Exploratory Factor Analysis on Gangsterism

...OF SOUTHEASTERN PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF GOVERNANCE AND BUSINESS B.O. Obrero, Davao City EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS ON GANGSTERISM _________________________ In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Subject Data Analysis for Administrators _________________________ SHERWIN S. FORTUGALIZA September 2015 A total of two hundred sixty three (263) secondary students of Davao City National High School from different grade levels and programs were chosen as respondents to answer the questionnaire on gangsterism. The total number of respondents satisfied the requirement of 10 is to 1 subject-item ratio of Nunnally (1978). Measures of Sampling Adequacy and Sphericity KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .756 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1191.498 df 190 Sig. .000 Based from the result, A KMO of .756 which is near 1 signifies a pattern for correlations that are relatively compact which provide reliable factors. In general, a KMO coefficient must be greater than 0.50. Literatures indicate that KMO values between 0.5 to 0.7 were mediocre; values between 0.7 to 0.8 were considered good; and values between 0.8 to 0.9 were great; while values above 0.93 were deemed superb, with the latter suggestive of strong confidence that factor analysis fit for the data (Tamayo, 2012). Moreover, Bartletts Test of Sphericity of 1191.498 is significant with a ...

Words: 1542 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Etch Factor Analysis

...10.3.3 The Influence of etching parameter on Etch Factor: In order to obtain the effect of etching parameter on etching performance for each different level, the average response of each fixed parameter & level for each etching performance are summed up. Table no. 10.8 shows the total average response & the level of three parameter on Etch factor . The result shows that the optimum etching performance for the Etch factor is obtain at temp. of 600c, Conc. of 700 gm/lit, Time of 8min. This is the optimum setting obtained under the condition in which the experiments were performed. The Etch factor decreases with increase Concentration. The result of ANOVA for the Etch factor is presented in table 10.9. According to F-test, the 95% confidence...

Words: 1023 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Human Factors Analysis and Classification System

...Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Abstract As aircrafts become more reliable over the years, humans have progressively become more of a causal factor in aviation accidents. Thus, being able to analyze an accident from a human factor perspective is of paramount importance. However, a proper framework of accident analysis is necessary to address the complex and often nebulous nature of human error. The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Maintenance Extension (HFACS-ME) is one such framework that serves as an accident investigation and data analysis tool. This article will analyze how HFACS-ME is used from an applied perspective and demonstrate its utility using case studies. Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Maintenance Extension The Human Factors Analysis & Classification System (HFACS) was originally developed to analyze and classify human errors and other factors contributing to aviation incidents. HFACS combines features from Heinrich’s “Domino Theory” and Edward’s “SHEL Model” as well as Reason’s model to uncover factors that contribute to accidents (Schmidt, J. Lawson, D., n.d.). The Maintenance Extension of HFACS termed HFACE-ME was created to address aviation maintenance related incidents and facilitates the recognition of defective or absent defenses at four levels namely, Unsafe: Management Conditions, Maintainer Conditions, Working Conditions, and Maintainer...

Words: 1286 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Examples Of Factor Analysis

...Factor Analysis Assignment 1. The principal component analysis is the approach that is used for data reduction and creation of one or more than one index variables from the large number of variables. This happens with the use of linear combination of variables. The index variable that is created from this analysis is called components. While, the Factor Analysis is the approach that is used for data reduction in different way than principal component analysis. It is the measurement model of latent variable. This cannot be measured directly with one variable rather, it is observed through the relationship between x and y variables. 2. The general approach (Kaiser) is to retain factors with eigenvalue ≥ 1 and eliminate factors with eigenvalue...

Words: 944 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Analysis of Macroenviromental Factors

...INTERNATIONAL FACTORS OF ENVIRONMENT Public administration operates in a global environment that requires a greater emphasis on cooperation among nations. Globalization has become a catch world for international development endeavors throughout the world. With globalization borders between regions and nations are no longer important. A final component of the general environment is actions of other countries or groups of countries that affect the organization. Governments may act to reserve a portion of their industries for domestic firms, or may subsidize particular types of businesses to make them more competitive in the international market. Some countries may have a culture or undergo a change in leadership that limits the ability of firms to participate in the country's economy. As with the other elements of the macroenvironment, such actions are not directed at any single company, but at many firms. ECONOMIC ASSOCIATIONS. One of the most recent joint efforts by governments to influence business practices was NAFTA. The agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico was intended to facilitate free trade between the three countries. The result has been a decrease in trade barriers between them, making it easier to transport resources and outputs across national boundaries. The move has been beneficial to many businesses, and probably to the economies of all three countries. In most economic associations, preference is also given to products from member countries...

Words: 1251 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Strategies for Sustainable Channel Relations in Mobile Telecom Sector

...Strategies for Sustainable Channel Relations in Mobile Telecom Sector The main objective of the study is to provide an accurate role for the company executive in developing channel relations. The constructs identified for developing sustainable relationships were Setting distribution objectives, Channel design, Logistics, Image Building, Inventory management, Channel management, Payment & credit, Promotional assistance, Setting targets, Coverage frequency , Motivating channel members to perform. The sample selected contained distributors from the Mobile telecom sector and company executives/channel managers of leading telecom companies. Factor analysis and Friedman’s test was applied. The findings revealed a correlation in attitude between distributors and the executives. Motivating distributors was rated as the most important strategy by the company. The distributors felt that all channel partners needed to have positive attitude towards the channel while company executives felt that aggression made channel members perform effectively. Such findings will be of use to mobile telecom companies who are new entrants to the Indian market and to existing companies who plan to expand their coverage There are 4 GSM and 2 CDMA players, 4800 distributors (Cellular Operators association of India), having 260 company executives. In case of distributors ,the total sample size 240 distributors from the Mobile telecom sector, out of which 120 were high performing( with Rupees 80-90...

Words: 903 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Anz, Analysis

...Page 1 of 8 ANZMAC 2009 Satisfaction with Services: An Impact-Performance Analysis for Soccer-Fan Satisfaction Judgements Marko Sarstedt*, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, sarstedt@lmu.de Manfred Schwaiger, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich schwaiger@lmu.de Christian M. Ringle, University of Hamburg & University of Technology, Sydney, cringle@econ.uni-hamburg.de Siegfried Gudergan, University of Technology Sydney, Siggi.Gudergan@uts.edu.au Abstract Fan satisfaction is with services is a key element to successfully compete in the soccer industry. In this paper we examine the antecedent factors that explain the variations in overall service satisfaction judgements. We draw on service an activities put in place by soccer clubs to illustrate these effects. Based on a literature review, interviews with both soccer fans and an industry expert, we develop a measurement approach for satisfaction which we test subsequently using a large-scale sample among soccer fans. An analysis of the impact-performance implications of antecedent drivers shows that stadium features, team characteristics, and fan-based support for the club and its management are the most important factors that influence overall satisfaction. Keywords: customer service, satisfaction, service experience, service providers ANZMAC 2009 Page 2 of 8 Satisfaction with Services: An Impact-Performance Analysis for Soccer-Fan Satisfaction Judgements Literature review on the relevance of fan satisfaction...

Words: 3940 - Pages: 16

Premium Essay

He Reward and Recognition Process in Total Quality Management

...American Journal of Applied Sciences, 10 (3): 247-252, 2013 ISSN: 1546-9239 ©2013 Science Publication doi:10.3844/ajassp.2013.247.252 Published Online 10 (3) 2013 (http://www.thescipub.com/ajas.toc) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND CONTRACTORS COMPETITIVENESS 1 Faihan Alotaibi, 1Rushami Zien Yusoff and 2Rabiul Islam School of Business Management, School of Economics, Finance and Banking, College of Business, University Utara Malaysia, 06010, Kedah, Malaysia 2 1 Received 2013-04-05, Revised 2013-04-15; Accepted 2013-04-17 ABSTRACT Total quality management is basically about continuous organizational success through the employment of customer satisfaction and by basing it on the contribution of all the employees constantly working to enhance processes, services and products. The competitiveness concept has been defined in multitude of ways; in the individual firm’s context, industries context and nation’s context. The aim of the study is to identify the relationship between total quality management practices and contractors competitiveness. In order to achieve the study objective in the present study, a survey conducted. Questionnaires distributed to the contractor’s managers in Saudi Arabia. The findings of the study turn out to be true; the study will contribute to both theory and practice. Through the present study, the researcher expects the findings to shed light on the research conducted hierarchical regression to analyse the relationships...

Words: 1640 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Commuincation

...science and GSR (Galvanic Skin Response) data. As a result of this study, the authors suggest two models of movie trailers boosting customers’ appreciation desire to make a new movie trailer. Keywords: Movie Trailer Production Approach Model; Statistics; GSR INTRODUCTION O ver the last several years, the authors have been conducting applied research on a Customer Science Approach. In this study, the authors research “Effectiveness of Movie Trailers Boosting Customers’ Appreciation Desire” using statistical science and GSR (Galvanic Skin Response) data. First, shared factors that form the backdrop for the structural elements of movie trailers are identified (picture, story, function, etc.) and a numerical model is used to assess their relative impact. Next, GSR experiments are used as a new way to visualize viewers’ emotional responses and identify key factors that motivate them to see the advertised film. Key factors that affect viewer emotions (including changes in picture brightness, changes in the soundtrack, and sound effects) are then traced via changes in the physical chemistry of the test subjects. The authors then use the information gathered during these tests to formulate two new systematic models for creating movie trailers that will effectively motivate viewers to see the advertised film. The models are applied to the remaking...

Words: 3991 - Pages: 16