Scribd
Upload
43 views

4.1 Descriptive: Note N 173

- The document analyzes survey data from 173 respondents about their demographics, qualifications, income, and responses to questions about managerial control, project performance, and resource commitment. - It finds that most respondents were between 31-40 years old, male, had a master's degree, and earned between 100k-200k. - Statistical tests like reliability analysis, factor analysis, correlation, and regression were used to analyze the relationships between variables and determine the validity and reliability of the survey responses. - The analysis found positive correlations between managerial control and project performance, and between resource commitment and both managerial control and project performance. However, resource commitment was not found to be a moderator of the relationship between

Uploaded by

Yasi Eemo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
43 views

4.1 Descriptive: Note N 173

- The document analyzes survey data from 173 respondents about their demographics, qualifications, income, and responses to questions about managerial control, project performance, and resource commitment. - It finds that most respondents were between 31-40 years old, male, had a master's degree, and earned between 100k-200k. - Statistical tests like reliability analysis, factor analysis, correlation, and regression were used to analyze the relationships between variables and determine the validity and reliability of the survey responses. - The analysis found positive correlations between managerial control and project performance, and between resource commitment and both managerial control and project performance. However, resource commitment was not found to be a moderator of the relationship between

Uploaded by

Yasi Eemo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

4.

1 DESCRIPTIVE

Table 4.1.1 Descriptive


Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Age 20-30 41 23.7 23.7 23.7
31-40 56 32.4 32.4 56.1
41-50 41 23.7 23.7 79.8
above 50 35 20.2 20.2 100.0

Gender male 102 59.0 59.0 59.0


female 71 41.0 41.0 100.0

Qualification bachelors 61 35.3 35.3 35.3


Masters 90 52.0 52.0 87.3
others/diploma 22 12.7 12.7 100.0

Income less than 50k 20 11.6 11.6 11.6


50k-100k 33 19.1 19.1 30.6
100k-200k 49 28.3 28.3 59.0
200k-300k 35 20.2 20.2 79.2
above 300k 36 20.8 20.8 100.0
Note N=173

The Table 4.1 shows the responses from sample size of 173.Age wise 32% response rate from
31-40 years is maximum and percentage of male respondents is 59% while female are 41%. 35%
respondents have bachelor’s degree while 52% respondents have Masters degree which is quite
high. In income wise maximum respondents lies in the range of 100k-200k which is 28.3% and
less than 50k have minimum responses of 11.6%.

Table 4.1.2 Normality


Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
MC1 -.514 .185 -.783 .367
MC2 -.404 .185 -.693 .367
MC3 -.776 .185 .114 .367
MC4 -.843 .185 -.159 .367
MC5 -.794 .185 -.405 .367
MC6 -.609 .185 -.678 .367
MC7 -.459 .185 -.833 .367
MC8 -.371 .185 -.695 .367
MC9 -.491 .185 -.560 .367
MC10 -.470 .185 -.751 .367
MC11 -.369 .185 -.906 .367
MC12 -.161 .185 -1.077 .367
MC13 -.150 .185 -.798 .367
MC14 -.417 .185 -.758 .367

PP1 -.705 .185 -.374 .367


PP2 -.393 .185 -1.011 .367
PP3 -.631 .185 -.506 .367
PP4 -.755 .185 -.267 .367
PP5. -.769 .185 .035 .367
PP6 -1.063 .185 .334 .367
RC1 -.382 .185 -.892 .367

RC2 -.253 .185 -.880 .367


RC3 -.618 .185 -.161 .367

Note N=173

Acceptable values of skewness fall between − 3 and + 3, and kurtosis is appropriate from a range
of − 10 to + 10 when utilizing SEM (Brown, 2006). Table 4.1.2 shows that the values of
Skewness and Kurtosis for each item lies between a threshold of +3 and -3 which means sample
data is normally distributed or represents the desired population.

4.2 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

Table 4.2 Reliability analysis


Variable Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
*MC .845 14
*PP .753 6
*RC .740 3
Note N=152 p ≤ 0.01 *MC= managerial control *PP= project performance *RC= Resource commitment
Cronbach alpha (α) , developed by Lee Cronbach in 1951, measures reliability of scale.
Reliability is basically inter item consistency. According to Lee Cronbach, if α value is above 0.7
then our scale is reliable otherwise it’s not. Here in table 4.2 , we can see that α value for
variables MC, PP and RC is 0.845, 0.753 and 0.740 which is above 0.7 hence our scale is
reliable.

4.3 FACTOR ANALYSIS

Table 4.3 Factor Analysis


Variable Initial Extraction
MC1 1.000 .658
MC2 1.000 .642
MC3 1.000 .731
MC4 1.000 .637
MC5 1.000 .564
MC6 1.000 .623
MC7 1.000 .671
MC8 1.000 .682
MC9 1.000 .710
MC10 1.000 .742
MC11 1.000 .598
MC12 1.000 .542
MC13 1.000 .750
MC14 1.000 .717
PP1 1.000 .633
PP2 1.000 .704
PP3 1.000 .603
PP4 1.000 .561
PP5. 1.000 .590
PP6 1.000 .727
RC1 1.000 .689
RC2 1.000 .632
RC3 1.000 .548

Validity of scale is checked by using factor analysis of all items (Kroger, Rolf O. (1975). If alpha
value of any item in the extraction column table 4.3 is less than 0.6, we remove that item from
the questionnaire while carrying our further analysis such as correlation and regression. Here in
table 4.3, Items MC5-MC11-MC12 used for managerial control and PP5-PP4 used for project
performance and RC1 used for Resource commitment have values less than 0.6 hence we will
remove these items from questionnaire to make it valid.

4.4 CORRELATION

Table 4.4 Correlations


Variable MCF PPF RCF
*MCF Pearson 1
Correlation
*PPF Pearson .681** 1
Correlation
*RCF Pearson .456** .632** 1
Correlation
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*MC= managerial control *PP= project performance *RC= Resource commitment

Correlation checks the intensity and direction of relationship between variables. The coefficient
of the correlation remains between the range of -1 and +1. The value of -1 indicates negative
relation between variables and +1 presents the strong positive relation (Bluman, 1995). The
value less than zero indicate nonexistence of the relationship. Main correlation is considered
Pearson correlation also named as linear correlation. Table 4.4 shows correlation between
managerial control and project performance 0.681 which is quite high this means they have
strong positive relationship. The relationship between resource commitment and managerial
control is 0.46 which means positive relationship. The value of correlation between resource
commitment and project performance is 0.632 which means they have strong positive
relationship.
4.5 REGRESSION

TABLE 4.5.1 Effect of managerial control on project performance


Β t R R2 P
a
MCF - PPF .264 12.157 .632 .399 .000

TABLE 4.5.2 Effect of managerial control on resource commitment


Β t R R2 P
a
MCF - RCF .105 6.697 .456 .208 .000

TABLE 4.5.3 Effect of resource commitment on project performance


Β t R R2 P
a
RCF - PPF 1.063 10.658 .632 .399 .000

The P values of MCF – PPF, MCF – RCF and RCF – PPF are all less than 0.05 which means that
these relationships are significant and our hypothesis are true. Also R square values are around
0.4 which means change in IV will bring 40 percent change in DV. R values are around 0.5
which means that 1 unit change in IV will bring 0.5 unit change in DV.

4.5 MODERATION

TABLE 4.5.2 Effect of moderation on managerial control and project performance relationship
Coeff Se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 2.2934 1.8131 1.2648 .2077 -1.2860 5.8727
RCF .4895 .3578 1.3680 .1731 -.2169 1.1958
MCF 1637 .0558 2.9313 .0038 .0535 .2739
Int_1 0058 .0103 .5593 .5767 -.0146 .0261

In this section we checked if moderator actually affects relationship of IV and DV or not.


Int_1 is a variable we got by multiplying RCF and MCF, then we checked its relationship with
DV . Here in table you can see that p value is above 0.05 which means relationship is
insignificant, hence RCF is not acting as a moderator in our case.

You might also like