Scribd
Upload
67 views17 pages

Percent Valid 18-24 89.2 89.2 89.2 25-34 10.4 10.4 99.6 55-64 0.4 0.4 100 Total 100 100 Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1) The document provides demographic information about survey respondents, including age ranges (89.2% were 18-24, 10.4% were 25-34), gender (53.6% male, 46.4% female), occupation (98% were students), and monthly spending on fast food (18.8% spent Rs. 1-500, 36.4% spent Rs. 501-1000, etc.). 2) It also includes data on marital status (98% were unmarried), and ratings of customer service and layout for various fast food restaurants on a scale of 1 to 5 (McDonalds received the highest ratings for both). 3) The final chart shows the average ratings for variety

Uploaded by

shivpal singh
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
67 views17 pages

Percent Valid 18-24 89.2 89.2 89.2 25-34 10.4 10.4 99.6 55-64 0.4 0.4 100 Total 100 100 Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1) The document provides demographic information about survey respondents, including age ranges (89.2% were 18-24, 10.4% were 25-34), gender (53.6% male, 46.4% female), occupation (98% were students), and monthly spending on fast food (18.8% spent Rs. 1-500, 36.4% spent Rs. 501-1000, etc.). 2) It also includes data on marital status (98% were unmarried), and ratings of customer service and layout for various fast food restaurants on a scale of 1 to 5 (McDonalds received the highest ratings for both). 3) The final chart shows the average ratings for variety

Uploaded by

shivpal singh
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 17

Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent Percent


Valid 18-24
89.2 89.2 89.2
25-34
10.4 10.4 99.6
55-64 0.4 0.4 100
Total

100 100
100
80

Percentage
60
40
20
0
18-24
Gender
Valid
Occupation Percent Gender
Percent
Valid Male
53.6 53.6
54
120 Valid Cumulative Female

Percentage
100 Percent Percent Percent 46.4 50 46.4
Valid Service 1.2 1.2 1.2 Total 100 46 100
80
Percentage

Self-
42
60 AGE
Employeed

40
0.8 0.8 2 Monthly Money
Gender Spent
100 Student 98 98 100
20 40
80 Total 100 100 35
30
Percentage

Percentage
60 Service Self-Employeed Student 25
20
40 Occupation 15
20 10
5 on Fast Food
Monthly spending
0 0
18-24 25-34 55-64 Percent
1-500 Valid Perce 1001-15001501
501-1000
AGE Valid 1-500 18.8 18.8Rs.
501-1000 36.4 36.4
1001-1500 28.8 28.8
1501 and a 16 16
Total 100 100
Cumulative
Gender
Percent
53.6
54
Valid Cumulative
50 100 Male Percent Percent Percent
Female
Valid Married
46 1.6 1.6 1.6
Undmarrie
42 d Marital Status
hly Money
Gender Spent 98 98 99.6
120
Others 0.4 0.4 100
Total 100
100 100
80

Percenatge
60
40
20
501-1000 Cumulative Percent
1001-15001501 and above
0
Rs. 18.8 Married Undmarried Others
55.2 Marital Status
84
100
Customer Associates Behavior
McDonalds SubWay Domino's P Pizza hut KFC
N Valid 250 250 250 250 250
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 4.012 3.032 3.516 3.452 3.26

Customer Assocites Behavior


4.5
4
3.5 McDonalds 4.012
3 SubWay 3.032
2.5
Mean

Domino's Pizz 3.516


2
1.5 Pizza hut 3.452
1 KFC 3.26
0.5
0
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizza Pizza hut KFC
Restaurant

Layout
4.5
Layout 4 McDonald 3.924
3.5 McDonalds SubWay Domino's P Pizza hut KFC SubWay 3.096
N 3
Valid 250 250 250 250 250 Domino's P 3.292
2.5
Mean

Missing
2 0 0 0 0 0 Pizza hut 3.48
Mean 1.5 3.924 3.096 3.292 3.48 3.428 KFC 3.428
1
0.5
0
McDonalds SubWay Food(menu)
Domino's PizzaservedKFC
Pizza hut
Restaurant
4.5
4
3.5
3 Variety in Food
2.5 3.7
Mean

2 3.6
1.5 3.5
1 3.4
0.5 3.3
Mean

0 3.2 Pizza Pizza hut


McDonalds SubWay Domino's KFC
3.1
Restaurant
3
2.9
2.8
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizza Pizza hut

Restaurant
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizza Pizza hut

Restaurant

Quickness of Serv
5
Quickness of service
4
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizza hut KFC
N Valid 250 250 250 250 250 3

Mean
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 2
Mean 4.336 3.188 3.456 3.268 3.372
1

McDonald 4.336 0
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizza
SubWay 3.188 Restaurant
Domino's P 3.456
Pizza hut 3.268
KFC 3.372 Cleanliness
4.5
4
3.5
Cleanliness at QSR 3
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizza hut KFC 2.5

Mean
N Valid 250 250 250 250 250 2
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 1.5
Mean 4.148 3.412 3.688 3.724 3.568 1
0.5
McDonald 4.148 0
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizza
SubWay 3.412
Restaurant
Domino's P 3.688
Pizza hut 3.724
KFC 3.568

Value for Money


McDonalds SubWay Domino's P Pizza hut KFC
N Valid 250 250 250 250 250
Missing 0 0 0 0 Value for Money
0
Mean 4.24 2.972 3.5 3.272 3.32
4.5
4
McDonald 4.24
3.5
SubWay 2.972 3
Domino's P 3.5 2.5
Mean

Pizza hut 3.272 2


KFC 3.32 1.5
1
0.5
0
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizza Pizza hut KFC
Restaurant
2

M
1.5
1
0.5
0
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizza Pizza hut KFC
Restaurant
Location
McDonaldSubWay Domino's Pizza hut KFC
N Valid 250 250 250 250 250
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 4.248 3.108 3.648 3.368 3.236

McDonald 4.248
SubWay 3.108 Location of Restaurant
Domino's P 3.648 4
Pizza hut 3.368 3
KFC 3.236 2
1
Mean

0
s ay izz
a ut C
ald ah KF
o n bW 's
P
izz
cD Su o P
M in
m
Do

Restaurant

Food
(menu)
served
McDonald SubWay Domino's Pizza hut KFC
N Valid 250 250 250 250 250
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 3.876 3.068 3.532 3.568 3.372

McDonald 3.876
SubWay 3.068
Domino's P 3.532
Pizza hut 3.568
n Food KFC 3.372

Variety in Food
McDonald SubWay Domino's PPizza hut KFC
N Valid 250 250 250 250 250
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 3.568 3.1 3.464 3.352 3.252

mino's Pizza Pizza hut KFC


McDonal 3.568

aurant
mino's Pizza Pizza hut KFC
SubWay 3.1
aurant Domino's 3.464
Pizza hut 3.352
uickness of Service KFC 3.252

SubWay Domino's Pizza Pizza hut KFC


Restaurant

Cleanliness

SubWay Domino's Pizza Pizza hut KFC


Restaurant

hut KFC
hut KFC
Happiness
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizza hut KFC
N Valid 250 250 250 250 250
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 3.92 2.952 3.436 3.48 3.18

McDonald 3.92 Happiness


SubWay 2.952
4.5 Best Food Served
Domino's P 3.4364
4
Pizza hut 3.48
3.5
3.5
KFC 3.183
2.5 3
Mean

2 2.5

Mean
1.5 2
1 1.5
0.5 1
0
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizza Pizza hut 0.5
KFC
Restaurant 0
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizza
Restaurant

Good treatment at QSR


McDonaldSubway Domin's Pi Pizza hut KFC
N Valid 250 250 250 250 250
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 Treatment at Q
Mean 3.864 3.088 3.46 3.552 3.3
4.5
4
McDonald 3.864 3.5
SubWay 3.088 3
Domino's P 3.46 2.5
Mean

Pizza hut 3.552 2


KFC 3.3 1.5
1 No compromise on Q
0.5
4.2 0
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizz
4
Restaurant
3.8
Mean

3.6
No Compromise on Quality at QSR 3.4
McDonaldsSubWay Domino's Pizza hut KFC
3.2
N Valid 250 250 250 250 250
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 3
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizza
Regularly Visit
Restaurant
4.5
4
3.4

3.2

3
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizza
Mean 3.988 3.428 3.56 3.816 3.396 Regularly Visit
Restaurant
4.5
McDonald 3.988
4
SubWay 3.428
3.5
Domino's P 3.56 3
Pizza hut 3.816 2.5

Mean
KFC 3.396 2
1.5
Regularly visit QSR 1
McDonaldsSubWay Domino's Pizza hut KFC 0.5
N Valid 250 250 250 250 250 0
McDonalds SubWay Domino's Pizza
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Restaurant
Mean 3.92 2.64 3.308 3.048 2.92
McDonald 3.92
SubWay 2.64
Domino's P 3.308
Pizza hut 3.048
KFC 2.92
Best Food Served
McDonaldDomino's PPizza hut KFC
N Valid 250 250 250 250
Missing 0 0 0 0
Mean 3.736 3.412 3.448 3.228

Best Food Served Descriptive Statistics


Mean
McDonald 3.736
SubWay 2.9
Domino's P 3.412
Pizza hut 3.448
KFC 3.228
Valid N (lis

s SubWay Domino's Pizza Pizza hut KFC


Restaurant

Treatment at QSR

compromise on Quality
lds SubWay Domino's Pizza Pizza hut KFC
Restaurant

s SubWay Domino's Pizza Pizza hut KFC


Regularly Visit
Restaurant
s SubWay Domino's Pizza Pizza hut KFC
Regularly Visit
Restaurant

ds SubWay Domino's Pizza Pizza hut KFC


Restaurant
Classification Results for MC Donalds

Original Count

Predicted Group Membership %


catspendin
g 1 2 3 Total
Original
Count 1 26 21 0 47 44.8% of original grouped
2 77 86 0 163
3 19 21 0 40
% 1 55.3 44.7 0 100
2 47.2 52.8 0 100
3 Classification Results for Sub
47.5 52.5 0 100

Original

Classificat Spending RPredicted Group Membership Total


1 2 3
Original Count 1 21 11 15 47
2 53 32 78 163
3 11 11 18 40
% 1 44.68085 23.40426 31.91489 100
2 32.51534 19.6319 47.85276 100
3 27.5 27.5 45 100
28.4% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

Classificat Spending rPredicted Group Membership Total


1 2 3
Original Count 1 6 26 15 47
2 15 111 37 163
3 3 25 12 40
% 1 12.76596 55.31915 31.91489 100
2 9.202454 68.09816 22.69939 100
3 7.5 62.5 30 100
a 51.6% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
tion Results for MC Donalds
Category spending Predicted Group Membership Total
1 2 3
1 26 21 0 47
2 77 86 0 163
3 19 21 0 40
1 55.319148936 44.68085 0 100
2 47.239263804 52.76074 0 100
3 47.5 52.5 0 100
44.8% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

Classification Results for Subway


Spending rangePredicted Group Membership Total
1 2 3
Count 1 3 27 17 47
2 7 102 54 163
3 2 24 14 40
% 1 6.382979 57.44681 36.17021 100
2 4.294479 62.57669 33.12883 100
3 5 60 35 100
47.6% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

Classification R Spending rPredicted Group Membership Total


1 2 3
Original Count 1 2 27 18 47
2 16 115 32 163
3 2 23 15 40
% 1 4.255319 57.44681 38.29787 100
2 9.815951 70.55215 19.6319 100
3 5 57.5 37.5 100
a 52.8% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
Classificat Spending rPredicted Group Membership Total
1 2 3
Original Count 1 20 27 0 47
2 57 106 0 163 Original
3 15 25 0 40
% 1 42.55319 57.44681 0 100
2 34.96933 65.03067 0 100
3 37.5 62.5 0 100
a 50.4% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

Classificat Spending range Total


1 2 3
Original Count 1 19 23 5 47
2 51 98 14 163
3 12 23 5 40
% 1 40.42553 48.93617 10.6383 100
2 31.28834 60.1227 8.588957 100
3 30 57.5 12.5 100
48.8% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

Classificat Spending range Total


1 2 3
Original Count 1 19 23 5 47
2 51 98 14 163
3 12 23 5 40
% 1 40.42553 48.93617 10.6383 100
2 31.28834 60.1227 8.588957 100
3 30 57.5 12.5 100
a 48.8% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
Classificat Spending range Total
1 2 3
Count 1 20 27 0 47
2 57 106 0 163
3 15 25 0 40
% 1 42.55319 57.44681 0 100
2 34.96933 65.03067 0 100
3 37.5 62.5 0 100
50.4% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

Classificat Spending range Total


1 2 3
Original Count 1 17 28 2 47
2 39 110 14 163
3 13 27 0 40
% 1 36.17021 59.57447 4.255319 100
2 23.92638 67.48466 8.588957 100
3 32.5 67.5 0 100
50.8% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

You might also like