SPSS SYSTEM

Assessment Information

Subject Code: BUS605

Subject Name: Research Methodology and Data Collection

Assessment Title: Assessment 3 – Hypotheses testing (Individual Written Report)

Weighting: 35 %

Total Marks:
Length:

35
2500 (+- 10%)

Due Date: Submission due Week 12 – Sunday at 11.59 pm

COURSE: Master of (Research)

Unit: Research Methodology and Data Collection

Unit Code: BUS605

Type of Assessment: Assessment 3 – Individual Written Report

Unit Learning
Outcomes
addressed:

(a) Demonstrate an advanced ability to identify, assimilate, and
review applications of, particular research techniques.

(b) Identify various means of data collection that are feasible and
can be ethically enacted.

(c) Articulate and critically evaluate differences between alternative
research methodologies.

(d) Explain how research outcomes may be affected by the nature
and application of particular research techniques.

(e) Demonstrate an advanced ability to construct a robust
methodology for addressing a research question.

(f) Explain how the use of selected methodologies is relevant to a
specific research proposal.

Criteria for
Assessment:

 Preliminary analysis
 Hypothesis testing and data analysis
 Interpretation of findings
 Academic writing

Submission Date: Week 12 Sunday at 11.59 pm

Total Mark &
Weighting:

35 marks | 35%

Students are advised that any submissions past the due date without an approved extension
or approved extenuating circumstances incur a 5% penalty per calendar day,

calculated from the total mark e.g. a task marked out of 15 will incur a 1.75-mark penalty per
calendar day.

Task description

Scenario

Uber, a ridesharing service company has recently entered the Nepalese market, and its service has
been received by some people. Like any product or service, customers’ adoption and usage are
essential for the survival of the firm. Thus, like any other services, there might many factors that have
influenced riders to adopt and use Uber services. However, from the existing literature, empirical studies
on factors determining ridesharing service adoption is scarce, especially in emerging economies. Thus,
a study is being conducted to address this gap in the literature. The social exchange theory forms the
basis of the study. The researcher designed the research model shown in figure 1 and developed
hypotheses H1-H5(see below the research model). Based on the research model shown in figure 1,
data was collected from some Uber riders in Nepal. The data is available in Exo (see Week 12 folder).

Figure1: Research Model

Hypotheses(H)

H1: Consumer need for prestige has a positive effect on riders’ continuous usage intentions

H2: Trust has a positive effect on riders’ continuous usage intentions

H3: Customer return investment has a positive effect on riders’ continuous usage intentions

H4: Convenience has a positive effect on riders’ continuous usage intentions

H5: Search benefit has a positive effect on riders’ continuous usage intentions

Consumer need for prestige

Riders continuous use
Intentions

Trust

Customer return on
investment

Convenience

Search benefit

Task

1. Clean the data- outliers and missing values

2. Analyse the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Create relevant chats to present
your findings.

3. Normality and distribution of data – perform a descriptive analysis (mean andHy SD of the

items) and test normality (skewness and kurtosis for all items)

4. Preliminary analysis- test the following:
a. Reliability (Cronbach alpha and CR)
b. convergent validity (factor loading and AVE).
c. discriminant validity (using correlation and square root of the AVEs)

5. Hypotheses testing: run a multiple regression to test the hypotheses (H1-H5).

6. Interpretation of findings: interpret the results from each of the analyses you have performed

(steps 2 to 5)

Important Notes:
You must create relevant tables for each of the analysis (steps 2 to 4) you have done to present your
findings. Place the table within the body of the test. Number the tables and refer to the relevant table
to support your arguments.

Cite at least one source to support your arguments. For example, if you concluded that the
acceptable threshold for Cronbach’s alpha is 0.7, cite a source to support this argument. You can find
relevant sources from survey papers in marketing, management, leadership and business research.

Download a relevant journal article in marketing, management, leadership and business research that
has used the survey research design and follow the style of reporting. If you go to the methodology
section of the articles, you would find how to report the findings.

Attach all the SPSS outputs as appendices. Remember to number all of them.

Questionnaire

Use the five-point scale to answer the questions below: 1= strongly disagree, 2 =Disagree, 3=
Neutral 4= Agree and 5=strongly agree

1. Gender A. Male B. Female

2. Educational Level A. Vocational/ High School B. Higher National Diploma (HND) C. University
degree D. Postgraduate degree

3. Age A. 18-27 years B. 28-37 years C. 38-47 years D. 48-57 years E. 58 years and above

4. Average usage per week A. Two B. four C. Six D. Eight E. other

Consumer need for prestige 1 2 3 4 5
CNFP Using Uber taxi enhances my self-confidence
CNFP Using Uber taxi makes me a worthy person
CNFP Using Uber services makes my friends value me
CNFP Using Uber taxi is prestigious
Trust
TS1 I trust that Uber services is safer
TS2 I trust that Uber services is robbery-free
TS3 I trust that Uber services drivers are careful when driving
TS4 I trust that Uber mobile application is safe to use

TS5 I trust that Uber taxi drivers will not run away with my belongings

Social connection
Using Uber services helps me get closer to important people
Using Uber services connects socially me to people
Using Uber services helps me develop relationships with others
I feel loved when use Uber services
Customer services
CS1 I am greeted and welcomed by an Uber driver anytime I pick Uber services
CS2 The Uber driver assist me when boarding the car
CS3 Uber offers friendly service
CS4 Overall , I will like customer service offered by Uber
Customer return on investment
CRI1 Uber service is cheaper
CRI 2 Uber service has a good economic value
CRI 3 Uber service gives me value for money
CRI 4 Using Uber makes me feel relaxed
Convenience
CN1 I can get an Uber driver anytime I wanted
CN2 Uber service is always accessible
CN3 Payment methods for Uber service are flexible
CN4 I am able to complete my journey without difficulty
Search benefit
SB1 It is easy to search for an Uber driver on the mobile application
SB2 Uber drivers are easily available
SB3 Uber services are normally closer to me
SB4 It is easy to reach an Uber driver
Riders continuous use Intentions
RP 1 I will continue to use Uber service.
RP 2 I encourage others to use Uber service
RP 3 I will use Uber services more often

Marking rubrics

Report content High Distinction
85%-100%

Distinctio
n 75%-
84%

Credit
65%-74%

Pass
50%-64%

Fail
0-49

Preliminary
analysis (10
marks)

Student has presented
relevant descriptive
analyses.
Relevant graphs have been
used to support the findings.
All required primary
analyses are clearly
demonstrated in tables.

Most of the descriptive
analyses are presented.
Most relevant graphs are
presented to support
descriptive analysis.
Most of required primary
analyses are clearly
demonstrated in tables

Some of the descriptive
analyses are presented.
Some relevant graphs
are presented to support
descriptive analysis.
Some of the required
primarily analyses are
demonstrated in tables.

Very few descriptive
analyses are presented.
Very few graphs to
support descriptive
analysis.
Very few required
primarily analysis is
provided and
demonstrated in tables.

Descriptive analysis is
presented incorrectly.
No Graph is presented to
support the findings.
Most of the required
primarily analyses are
missing.

Hypothesis testing
and data analysis
(5 marks)

All statistical methods to test
the hypotheses are correctly
identified and explained.
All results are clearly
labelled and presented in
tables.

Most of the statistical
methods to test the
hypotheses are correctly
identified and explained.
Most of the results are
clearly labelled and
presented in tables.

Some of the statistical
methods to test
hypotheses are correctly
identified and used.
Some of the results are
clearly labelled and
presented in tables.

Very few statistical
methods to test
hypotheses are correctly
identified and used.
Very few results are
clearly labelled and
presented in tables.

Wrong analysis method has
been used; failed to report at
least two major steps.
Results presented are
confusing. Tables
presented are incomplete or
there are no results at all.

Interpretation of
findings (15 marks)

All the findings from the
primary analysis have been
accurately interpreted.
All the findings from the
hypotheses testing are
accurately interpreted.

Most of the findings from the
primary analysis have been
accurately interpreted.

Most of the findings from the
hypotheses testing are
accurately interpreted.

Some of the findings from
the primary analysis
have been accurately
interpreted.

Some of the findings from
the hypotheses testing
are accurately
interpreted.

A few of the findings from
the primary analysis have
been accurately
interpreted.
.
A few of the findings from
the hypotheses testing are
accurately interpreted.

Findings from the primary
analysis are inaccurately
interpreted.

Findings from the
hypotheses testing are
inaccurately interpreted .

Academic writing
(5 marks)

Writing is very well clear,
concise, and coherent.
Discipline-specific language
has been used.

Arguments are supported by
relevant sources.

Writing is very well clear,
concise, and coherent.
Discipline-specific language
has been used.

Exhibits and Facts are clearly
presented in support of claims.

Very little grammatical and
punctuation errors.

Writing is very well clear,
concise, and however, the
logical flow is slightly
lacking. coherent.
Discipline-specific
language has been used.

Arguments are not well
supported with relevant
sources.

Some grammatical and
punctuation errors.

Reasonably organized
report is presented in
discipline-specific academic
language.

Some grammatical and
punctuation errors.

Discipline-specific language is
hardly used. The arguments
lack coherence and support.