utpa market research analysis of possible parking garage

Research Analysis: UTPA Parking Garage

Kirk Teegardin

Paul Watkins

December 5, 2012

4482 Fall 2012

Table of Contents

Cover…………………………………………………………………………………………...….1

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………...………2-

3

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………….4

Introduction

Background Information…………………………………………………………………..5

Research Problem…………………………………………………………………………5

Research Questions……………………………………………………………………...5-6

Hypotheses…………………………………………………..…………………………….6

Data Collection

Research Design…………………………………………………………………………...7

Selection of Samples………………………………………………………………………7

Sampling Plan…………………………………………………………………………...7-8

Estimation of Sample Size………………………………………………………………...8

Validity and Reliability…………………………………………………...…………….....8

Outliers Excluded………………………………………………………………………….9

Statistical Analysis Assumptions………………………………………..……..………….9

2

Basic Summary of Statistics……………………………….…………………………..9-10

Results

One Sample T-Test……………………………………………………………………....11

Independent Sample T-Test…………………………………………………………..11-12

Chi-Square……………………………………………………………………………12-13

ANOVA………………………………………………………………………………….14

Single Linear Regression Model…………………………………………………………15

Multiple Regression Model…………………………………………………………..15-16

Conclusion and Recommendations……………………………………………………………....17

Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………….....18

Appendices

Appendix I: Questionnaire……………………………………………………………19-20

Appendix II: Codebook…………………………………………………………………..21

Appendix III: SPSS Results…………………………………………………………..22-27

3

Executive Summary

The research was authorized by: Kirk Teegardin, and Paul Watkins. We strived to determine the

satisfaction level of the people at the University of Texas at Pan American (UTPA). This would

help us determine the need for an alternative, a parking garage. Several other studies were

conducted with the different grade levels associated with each individual and their satisfaction

level. We believed that many people are currently unsatisfied with the parking situation at the

campus. We also believed that the higher the grade level, such as a senior versus a freshmen,

they would no longer have a desire to change the parking situation; therefore, the seniors would

be more satisfied with the current UTPA parking. The data collected was gathered by having

random people of the business administration and mathematics building, at UTPA, answer the

questionnaire. In total, there were thirty-one participants.

After conducting the research:

As believed, the people of UTPA are unsatisfied with the parking.

Surprisingly, seniors are less satisfied with the parking; this may be due to them being at

UTPA for a longer time than the freshmen.

Students are also willing to pay extra for a parking garage.

The need and want to change the University of Texas Pan American parking is clear. People

would be willing to park at a parking garage if provided. Many are willing to pay seventy-five

dollars a year for such a service.

_______________________ _______________________

Kirk Teegardin Paul Watkins

4

Introduction:

Background Information:

This study was conducted among fellow students at the University of Texas Pan

American to determine the satisfaction level of the current parking situation. To further

understand the gravity of the parking dilemma we surveyed a range of students from incoming

freshman to graduate students. We are very displeased with the parking as is and devised a

survey to see whether students favored a parking garage in addition to the parking already

available.

Research Problem:

Many people spend fifteen to thirty minutes attempting to find parking before class. This

usually results in very long walks in remote parking vastly far away from their classrooms; in

addition to the walk they have to battle the elements of the Rio Grande Valley weather. There

are nineteen thousand UTPA students. From these nineteen thousand, about fifteen thousand

students have a parking permit. As the parking currently is, there is only six thousand and five

hundred parking spot available. This leaves the remaining eight thousand and five hundred

students with a paid parking permit to find a place to park elsewhere.

Research Question:

We were curious on the satisfaction level people have towards the parking. Since we

believed that the population would have a negative satisfaction level we determined a possible

solution to the problem, a parking garage. As Team Broncs' study previously indicated, people

5

are dissatisfied with the parking at UTPA. We believe that if people are unsatisfied with the

parking they would be willing to try an alternative. In our case, we believe that a parking garage

would adequately increase the satisfaction level of the people that have to park.

Hypotheses:

Our initial hypothesis is that the students of the University of Texas Pan American are

unsatisfied with the parking. (µ = mean of satisfaction level)

H0 = µ = 2

Ha = µ ≠ 2 null

Since seniors are about to graduate, we believe that the seniors are more satisfied with the

universities parking then the freshmen; making the satisfaction level of freshmen and seniors

different. (µ1 = seniors, µ2= freshmen)

H0 = µ1 ≠ µ2 null

Ha = µ1 = µ2

If the first hypothesis proves to be true, then we will determine

whether or not students would be willing to pay extra to park in a parking

garage, based on their satisfaction level. (µ1 = Strongly Disagree, µ2 = Disagree, µ3 =

Neither Agree nor Disagree, µ4 = agree, µ5 = Strongly Agree)

H0 = µ1 = µ2 = µ3 = µ4 = µ5

Ha = At least one group is different from the rest

6

Data Collection:

Research Design:

The questionnaire that was created consisted of nine Likert Scale questions with one open

ended questions at the end. The research done was exploratory research trying to determine if

the University of Texas Pan American students would benefit from having a parking garage.

Within this data, age, gender, and grade classification were gathered in order to pinpoint and

associate these demographics about how they feel towards the parking at the University of Texas

Pan American.

Selection of Samples:

The questionnaire was given to thirty-one random individuals throughout the business

administration and mathematics building. With only these two buildings being where the survey

was distributed made these two buildings the sampling frame. Simple random sampling was

used within these two buildings gathering a mix of gender, age, and grade classification.

Probability sampling was used since everyone in the selected geographic area had the same

probability of being selected. In total, thirty-one people completed the survey in order to

represent UTPA’s population of students.

Sampling Plan:

The target population for the study done was the students that park at the University of

Texas Pan American. These people were targeted, because they are the majority of people that

park in the parking lot. The way we randomly selected individuals was by asking students in

7

classrooms to fill out the questionnaire. Once they finished it, we collected the data and

interpreted into meaningful data.

Estimation of Sample Size:

There are an estimated nineteen thousand students at the University of Texas Pan

American. The sample size of thirty-one is appropriate since the questionnaire had only ten

questions. Originally, we collected over sixty questionnaires, only to find out that thirty of the

questionnaires looked exactly the same. Due to this, we had to toss out the thirty defective

surveys in order for the data we collected to be useful.

Validity and Reliability:

According to Basic Marketing Research, by Churchill, Brown, and Suter, validity is the

extent to which differences in scores on a measuring instrument reflect true differences amount

individuals, groups, or situations in the characteristic that it seeks to measure, or true differences

in the same individual, group, or situation from one occasion to another, rather than systematic or

random errors. The sample used in this study is valid since the questionnaire participants had

different gender, age, and grade classification. Reliability is the ability of a measure to obtain

similar scores for the same object, trait, or construct across time, across different evaluate, or

across the items forming the measure. The reliability of the data collected is worthy. Previously

mentioned, we did not include thirty surveys, due to that the faulty questionnaires would make

the data unreliable. The satisfaction level that people feel towards the universities parking also

correlates with their willingness to pay more for a parking garage; proving the internal

consistency of our findings.

8

Outliers Excluded:

Like all studies done, there are answers that are not correctly answered and cannot be

used. An outlier is a response that is so different in magnitude from the rest of the other

responses that they are treated as a special case. An example that occurred when asking for the

price to pay for a parking garage permit the participant selected all of the answers. This makes it

difficult to ascertain what the person is willing to pay, therefore his/her response to this question

was left out. Another outlier that was excluded was the participant that responded to have the

parking garage at any of the three locations mentioned in the questionnaire. They may have

meant to state the necessity the feel towards having a parking garage and that they would be

satisfied if it was located in any of the three locations. Despite this, the information provided by

him/her was not used because they did not pick a single location that would best suit their needs.

Statistical Analysis Assumptions:

We assume that the majority of the students are unsatisfied with the parking at the

University of Texas Pan American. The students of the campus are also willing to pay more for

a parking garage. Another prediction we made is that there is not a significant correlation

between age, grade level, and the unsatisfied level of the students of the university; which is

tested in the liner regression models.

Basic Summary of Statistics:

The statistics gathered from thirty-one participants were used to calculate several tests

using SPSS. Some basic statistics calculated was the mean of satisfaction of the parking at the

University of Texas Pan American, 2.03. This mean displays that the students are not satisfied

9

with the parking at the university. Another simple calculation determined was the amount of

students that are willing to pay more. Even the students that are satisfied with the university

parking believe that paying $101.00 - $150.00 is a reasonable price for a parking garage permit.

10

Results:

One Sample T-Test:

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Satisfaction 31 2.03 1.016 .182

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 2

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Satisfaction .177 30 .861 .032 -.34 .40

Interpretation: the above tables display the results from the one sample t-test. The sample size of

thirty-one was asked what their current satisfaction level was with the parking at the University

of Texas Pan American, with the use of Likert Scale of 1-5. The results produced a mean of 2.03

displaying the satisfaction. This means that we reject the null hypothesis; students are satisfied

with the universities parking.

Independent Sample T-Test:

Group Statistics

Grade Level N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Satisfaction

dimension1

Freshmen 4 2.00 1.414 .707

Senior 13 1.92 1.038 .288

11

Independent Samples Test

Levene's

Test for

Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference

Lower Upper

Satisfaction Equal variances

assumed

.1

8

3

.675 .120 15 .906 .077 .642 -1.292 1.446

Equal variances

not assumed

.101 4.049 .925 .077 .763 -2.033 2.187

Interpretation: the above table compared seniors versus freshmen and their satisfaction level with

the University of Texas Pan American parking. Our second hypothesis was that seniors are more

satisfied with the parking, because they are about to graduate. It was proven in our research that

seniors are actually less satisfied than the freshmen. The two mean's are almost the same, so we

round up making them equal. Therefore, we accept the null hypothesis that seniors are not

equally dissatisfied and so we conclude that seniors and freshmen are both equally dissatisfied

with the parking at the campus.

Chi-Square:

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 5.916a 8 .657

Likelihood Ratio 6.769 8 .562

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.489 1 .222

N of Valid Cases 29

a. 13 cells (86.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is .03.

12

Location * Grade Level Crosstabulation

Grade Level

TotalFreshmen Sophomore Junior Senior

Graduate

Student

Location Location

1

Count 0 0 1 0 0 1

% within Location .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%

% within Grade

Level

.0% .0% 9.1% .0% .0% 3.4%

% of Total .0% .0% 3.4% .0% .0% 3.4%

Location

2

Count 1 1 5 10 1 18

% within Location 5.6% 5.6% 27.8% 55.6% 5.6% 100.0%

% within Grade

Level

33.3% 100.0% 45.5% 76.9% 100.0% 62.1%

% of Total 3.4% 3.4% 17.2% 34.5% 3.4% 62.1%

Location

3

Count 2 0 5 3 0 10

% within Location 20.0% .0% 50.0% 30.0% .0% 100.0%

% within Grade

Level

66.7% .0% 45.5% 23.1% .0% 34.5%

% of Total 6.9% .0% 17.2% 10.3% .0% 34.5%

Total Count 3 1 11 13 1 29

% within Location 10.3% 3.4% 37.9% 44.8% 3.4% 100.0%

% within Grade

Level

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 10.3% 3.4% 37.9% 44.8% 3.4% 100.0%

Interpretation: the Chi-Square tested the different locations that the researchers believed would

be good places for the parking garage to be located. The majority of people liked location two,

which is located across the educational complex. Several participants of the questionnaire

responded with all three locations; therefore their response was tossed out in order to have

accurate results.

13

ANOVA:

Descriptives

Satisfaction

N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95%

Confidence

Interval for

Mean

Minimum Maximum

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Strongly Disagree 2 2.50 2.121 1.500 -16.56 21.56 1 4

Disagree 2 2.50 .707 .500 -3.85 8.85 2 3

Neutral 7 2.86 .900 .340 2.03 3.69 2 4

Agree 12 1.58 .669 .193 1.16 2.01 1 3

Strongly Agree 8 1.75 1.035 .366 .88 2.62 1 4

Total 31 2.03 1.016 .182 1.66 2.40 1 4

ANOVA

Satisfaction

Sum of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Between Groups 8.694 4 2.173 2.537 .064

Within Groups 22.274 26 .857

Total 30.968 30

Interpretation: the ANOVA tested the satisfaction level with the willing to pay extra for a

parking garage. The significance of 0.064 shows that there is a relationship between the

satisfaction level and the willingness to pay for a parking garage. A total of twenty people

agreed that they agree to pay more for a parking garage; because of this, we do not accept our

third hypothesis that different satisfaction levels of students are willing to pay the same for a

14

parking garage. This means that satisfaction level of the parking does not fully justify the

amount the participants are willing to pay for a parking garage permit.

Single Linear Regression Model:

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression .311 1 .311 .294 .592a

Residual 30.657 29 1.057

Total 30.968 30

a. Predictors: (Constant), Grade Level

b. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

95.0% Confidence Interval for

B

B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 (Constant) 2.343 .602 3.892 .001 1.112 3.574

Grade Level -.097 .179 -.100 -.542 .592 -.464 .270

a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction

Interpretation: with this single regression model we wanted to see if the grade level of a student

affected their overall satisfaction level of the parking at the University of Texas Pan American.

The significance of 0.592 proves that grade level does not have a correlation to the satisfaction

level of the parking.

Multiple Regression Model:

15

ANOVAb


1 Regression .344 2 .172 .157 .855a

Residual 30.624 28 1.094

Total 30.968 30

a. Predictors: (Constant), Age, Grade Level


Coefficientsa


Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.


B


1 (Constant) 2.291 .681 3.363 .002 .895 3.686

Grade Level -.107 .191 -.110 -.561 .579 -.497 .284

Age .043 .245 .034 .175 .862 -.459 .545


Interpretation: this multiple regression model once again tested grade level, along with age, to

determine if there is a link to the satisfaction level of students. Like the previous test, the

significance of the grade level proves that there is no link to the satisfaction level. The

significance of 0.862 for age also proves that age does not have a correlation with a student’s

satisfaction level. One might argue that these findings prove useless. Our research team

believes that the grade level and age not correlating with the satisfaction level indicates that these

findings can be used for several years. As new students come in and as adult students come in

their age will not affect their desire for a parking garage.

16

Conclusions and Recommendations:

We have concluded those students are not satisfied with the parking of the University of

Texas Pan American. Since the problem is identified; the solution we believe that is adequate to

equate to this problem is to build a parking garage. Many of the students of the university are

willing to pay over one hundred dollars for a parking garage permit. On average, a parking

garage cost about nine million dollars to construct. If the parking garage provided nine thousand

parking spots, charging 100 dollars a year the money for the parking garage would be paid off in

ten years. The parking garage is quite expensive but it would also make the University of Texas

Pan American for appealing to students deciding on where to go to college. Having a parking

garage may also make it possible to create a campus football team, a study done by team

adventures. The grade levels of the students did not impact their satisfaction level. This

indicates that even the upper class would be willing to pay for a parking garage. Location two

was the prime choice of selection in the questionnaire. This location currently has a parking lot

that was constructed poorly. They did not make effective use of the parking lot and could have

put in at least an extra ten spots. Despite the extra ten spots, having nine thousands spots

available would make it possible for many people to park their cars; not having to walk for ten

minutes. It is recommended that the university conducts their own study over the entire

17

University of Texas Pan American population using our research as guide in order to determine

whether or not to construct a parking garage.

Limitations:

The research done had several limitations due to the adequate time and resources

available. The amount of participants that were in our study was only thirty-one. It would have

been better to have a larger sample size in order to have more accurate results. Another

limitation that occurred was on the questionnaire, number eight. The students that are satisfied

with the parking and that said they disagree on willing to pay more did not have an option on

question eight. They were forced to select a response, despite their previous responses.

18

Appendices:

Appendix I: Questionnaire

UTPA Parking Survey

Instructions: The purpose of this survey is to gather accurate information on the current UTPA parking situation that frustrates many students and faculty. This survey should take about five minutes to complete. Please answer all the questions listed below. Thank you for your time. (Bubble in your response when applicable). Contact Information: Email: [email protected]

1) What is your gender? o Male

o Female

2) How old are you? o 18-20

o 21-24

o 25-30

o 31-40

o 41-50

o 51+

3) What is your current student designation?o Freshmen

o Sophomore

o Junior

o Senior

o Graduate Student

19

o UTPA Faculty

4) I am satisfied with the UTPA parking situation

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree

5) I would be willing to park in a UTPA parking garage if provided


6) Do you currently have a UTPA parking permit?o Yes

o No

7) I would you be willing to pay extra for a parking permit that allows me to access to the parking garage


LOOK AT BACK

8) How much would you be willing to pay for this UTPA Parking Garage Permit?o $75.00 - $100.00

o $101.00 - $150.00

o $151.00 - $200

9) Which location would you like the UTPA Parking Garage to be located?

o Location 1. Across Recreation Facility

o Location 2. Across the Business Administration Building

o Location 3. Across the Health and Physical Education Building

10) Please describe your satisfaction level with the UTPA parking situation

20

(Use the map above)

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATIONAppendix II: Codebook

The above table is the codebook used to interpret the data.

The above table is the data used to come up with the research design results we have calculated.

21

Respondant Number Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 101 1 2 4 1 4 2 4 1 2 12 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 1 13 1 2 4 3 3 2 3 1 3 24 1 1 3 1 5 1 5 1 1 15 1 2 3 2 5 1 5 1 3 16 2 1 3 2 4 1 4 1 3 17 1 3 3 1 5 1 5 3 3 18 1 1 3 2 5 1 4 2 2 19 1 2 4 1 5 1 4 1 2

10 2 2 4 2 4 1 4 2 2 411 2 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 2 112 1 2 4 1 5 1 4 1 3 113 1 2 4 1 4 1 4 1 2 114 2 2 4 2 4 1 3 1 2 115 1 2 4 3 3 2 3 3 316 1 2 4 4 5 1 5 1 2 217 2 2 3 4 1 1 1 218 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 119 1 2 4 3 1 1 2 1 2 420 2 4 5 2 4 1 2 2 121 1 4 4 2 5 1 5 1 2 122 2 1 3 2 5 1 5 1 2 123 1 3 3 2 5 1 3 1 2 124 2 1 3 3 4 1 4 1 2 225 2 1 3 2 4 1 4 1 3 126 2 2 3 1 4 1 5 1 2 127 2 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 3 328 1 2 1 4 4 1 3 1 2 229 2 2 3 2 1 1 3 1 3 130 1 3 1 1 5 1 5 1 3 131 1 2 2 4 5 1 3 1 2 1

Number Question Code1 What is your gender? 1=Male, 2=Female2 How old are you? 1=18-20, 2=21-24, 3=25-30, 4=41-50, 5=51+3 What is your current student designation? 1=Freshmen, 2=Sophomore, 3=Junior, 4=Senior, 5=Graduate Student, 6=UTPA Faculty4 I am sastified with the UTPA parking situation 1=Stongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neaither Agree or Disagree, 4=Agree, 5= Strongly Agree5 I would be willing to park in a UTPA parking garage if provided 1=Stongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neaither Agree or Disagree, 4=Agree, 5= Strongly Agree6 Do you currently have a UTPA parking permit? 1=Yes, 2=No7 I would you be willing to pay extra for a parking permit that allows me to access to the parking garage 1=Stongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neaither Agree or Disagree, 4=Agree, 5= Strongly Agree8 How much would you be willing to pay for this UTPA Parking Garage Permit? 1=$75-100, 2=$101-150, 3=$151-200, 4=Other9 Which location would you like the UTPA Parking Garage to be located? 1= Location 1, 2=Location 2, 3=Location 3

10 Please describe your satisfaction level with the UTPA parking situation 1=Dissatisfied, 2=Satsified, 3=Indifferent, 4=Graduating Soon, does not care

Appendix III: SPSS results

T-Test

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Satisfaction 31 2.03 1.016 .182

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 2

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Satisfaction .177 30 .861 .032 -.34 .40

T-Test

Group Statistics

Grade Level N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Satisfaction

dimension1

Freshmen 4 2.00 1.414 .707

Senior 13 1.92 1.038 .288

22

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std. Error

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Satisfaction Equal

variances

assumed

.183 .675 .120 15 .906 .077 .642 -1.292 1.446

Equal

variances not

assumed

.101 4.04

9

.925 .077 .763 -2.033 2.187

Crosstabs

Location * Grade Level Crosstabulation

Grade Level

TotalFreshmen Sophomore Junior Senior

Graduate

Student

Location Location

1

Count 0 0 1 0 0 1

% within Location .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%

% within Grade

Level

.0% .0% 9.1% .0% .0% 3.4%

% of Total .0% .0% 3.4% .0% .0% 3.4%

Location

2

Count 1 1 5 10 1 18

% within Location 5.6% 5.6% 27.8% 55.6% 5.6% 100.0%

% within Grade

Level

33.3% 100.0% 45.5% 76.9% 100.0% 62.1%

% of Total 3.4% 3.4% 17.2% 34.5% 3.4% 62.1%

Location

3

Count 2 0 5 3 0 10

% within Location 20.0% .0% 50.0% 30.0% .0% 100.0%

% within Grade

Level

66.7% .0% 45.5% 23.1% .0% 34.5%

23

% of Total 6.9% .0% 17.2% 10.3% .0% 34.5%

Total Count 3 1 11 13 1 29

% within Location 10.3% 3.4% 37.9% 44.8% 3.4% 100.0%

% within Grade

Level

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 10.3% 3.4% 37.9% 44.8% 3.4% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 5.916a 8 .657

Likelihood Ratio 6.769 8 .562

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.489 1 .222

N of Valid Cases 29

a. 13 cells (86.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected

count is .03.

24

Oneway

25

Descriptives

Satisfaction

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound

Strongly Disagree 2 2.50 2.121 1.500 -16.56 21.56 1 4

Disagree 2 2.50 .707 .500 -3.85 8.85 2 3

Neutral 7 2.86 .900 .340 2.03 3.69 2 4

Agree 12 1.58 .669 .193 1.16 2.01 1 3

Strongly Agree 8 1.75 1.035 .366 .88 2.62 1 4

Total 31 2.03 1.016 .182 1.66 2.40 1 4

ANOVA

Satisfaction

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 8.694 4 2.173 2.537 .064

Within Groups 22.274 26 .857

Total 30.968 30

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Satisfaction

LSD

(I) Pay Extra (J) Pay Extra

Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Strongly Disagree Disagree .000 .926 1.000 -1.90 1.90

Neutral -.357 .742 .634 -1.88 1.17

Agree .917 .707 .206 -.54 2.37

Strongly Agree .750 .732 .315 -.75 2.25

Disagree Strongly Disagree .000 .926 1.000 -1.90 1.90

Neutral -.357 .742 .634 -1.88 1.17

Agree .917 .707 .206 -.54 2.37

Strongly Agree .750 .732 .315 -.75 2.25

Neutral Strongly Disagree .357 .742 .634 -1.17 1.88

Disagree .357 .742 .634 -1.17 1.88

26

Agree 1.274* .440 .008 .37 2.18

Strongly Agree 1.107* .479 .029 .12 2.09

Agree Strongly Disagree -.917 .707 .206 -2.37 .54

Disagree -.917 .707 .206 -2.37 .54

Neutral -1.274* .440 .008 -2.18 -.37

Strongly Agree -.167 .422 .696 -1.04 .70

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree -.750 .732 .315 -2.25 .75

Disagree -.750 .732 .315 -2.25 .75

Neutral -1.107* .479 .029 -2.09 -.12

Agree .167 .422 .696 -.70 1.04

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Regression

ANOVAb


1 Regression .311 1 .311 .294 .592a

Residual 30.657 29 1.057

Total 30.968 30

a. Predictors: (Constant), Grade Level


Coefficientsa


Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.


B


1 (Constant) 2.343 .602 3.892 .001 1.112 3.574

Grade Level -.097 .179 -.100 -.542 .592 -.464 .270


Regression

27

ANOVAb


1 Regression .344 2 .172 .157 .855a

Residual 30.624 28 1.094

Total 30.968 30

a. Predictors: (Constant), Age, Grade Level


Coefficientsa


Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.


B


1 (Constant) 2.291 .681 3.363 .002 .895 3.686

Grade Level -.107 .191 -.110 -.561 .579 -.497 .284

Age .043 .245 .034 .175 .862 -.459 .545


28