### Study on Statistics for Financial Decisions

Added on - 21 Apr 2020

• 18

pages

• 1998

words

• 21

views

• 0

downloads

Showing pages 1 to 4 of 18 pages
STATISTICS FOR FINANCIAL DECISIONSStudent Name:
2Statistics for Financial DecisionsSurvey among consumers of Schmeckt Gut Energy Bars carried out in 5 districts namely,A, B, C, D, and E reflected mixed response on satisfaction level of consumption- a mean valueof 7.27. Resultantly, weight of the bars was recorded to understand its impact, if any, on thedegree of satisfaction among its consumers, thereby detailing certain concrete recommendationsto address the situation. This report in consideration to the purpose stated, carried out certainstatistical analysis on the predictor variable- weight of the energy bars and the response variable-customer satisfaction to establish the causality of the former on the latter. Statistical tools namelymean and standard deviation was carried out to understand the standard weight of bars acrossdistricts, followed by Pearson Correlation and Linear regression.Mean distribution of Schmeckt Gut Energy Bars across 5 districts reflected varied weightdistribution initiating below 46 grams to above 48 grams (see Figure 1 below), despite thestandard weight being specified as 47 grams.1%1%1%2%1%1%3%1%2%2%4%4%1%5%5%3%13%12%11%10%5%1%3%1%1%1%3%1%1%1%Weight45.2045.3045.4045.5045.6045.7045.8045.9046.0046.1046.2046.3046.4046.6046.7046.8046.9047.0047.1047.2047.3047.4047.5047.9048.0048.1048.2048.4048.6049.00
3Statistics for Financial DecisionsHowever, since majority of the weight examined remained within 46.90 to 47.20, slightlyabove and below the standard margin, the average weight distribution, taking all the districtstogether project a mean value of 46.88, establishing approximately standardized weight, whentaken on average. Standard deviation of .70 obtained from the descriptive analysis justifies theconcentration of data around mean value of weight (see table 1, below).Descriptive StatisticsNMinimumMaximumMeanStd.DeviationWeight16045.2049.0046.8850.70105CS1083.0010.007.27782.11728Frequency distribution of customer satisfaction with Schmeckt Gut Energy Bars furtherpresents affirmative results with 53.7% rating the bars between 8 to 10 (see figure 2 below).Hence mean value of consume response project an above average value of 7.2, with standarddeviation of 2.1 validating the concentration data to certain extent (see table 1, above).8%3%13%9%13%16%25%13%Customer Satisfaction3.004.005.006.007.008.009.0010.00
4Statistics for Financial DecisionsHaving established the mean values of both customer satisfaction and weight of theenergy bars, it was now imperative to understand if there exist any linear relationship betweenthe two variables. This imperativeness can be reasoned with the necessity to recommendeffective strategies, which can be shaped if the causality of weight of energy bars on customersatisfaction is established. If not established, other parameters like ingredients, taste, price toname a few can be applied further, to strategize the degree of satisfaction among consumers.Bivariate correlation and linear regression, “principal statistical methodology for observationalexperiments” were applied to establish linear relationship and causality, where Pearsoncoefficient value projected its invariance to linear transformation of either variables(Rodgersand Nicewander; p.61). As seen in Table 2 below, weight and customer satisfaction established anegative relationship (α-.161) with significance at >.10 index (0.96) and hence a negativecausality of beta value (-.54). The results refer to inverse movement between weight of energybars and customer satisfaction.WeightCSUnstandardized CoefficientsStandardizedCoefficientstSig.BStd.ErrorBetaWeightPearsonCorrelation1-.16147.413.242195.909.000Sig. (2-tailed).096CSPearsonCorrelation-.1611-.054.032-.161-1.677.096Sig. (2-tailed).096

##### You’re reading a preview

To View Complete Document

Become a Desklib Library Member.
Subscribe to our plans