DATA ANALYSIS

Based on the data that has been provided, measurement of service value dimension was done
on 5 parameters – Efficiency, Quality, Social Value, Play, Aesthetics and Altruistic value. The
efficiency was judged based on the rating obtained on 5 questions, similarly Social value has
3 while Play, Quality, Aesthetics and Altruistic value each has 4 questions.

This in all amounts to 24 questions wherein respondents were asked to give their response
based on a 5 point likert scale, ranging from 5 being “strongly agree” and 1 being “strongly
disagree.”

To do an effective analysis among these 24 observed variable, method such as factor analysis
can help to explain the observed variance in these large number of variables by producing
reduced factors and loading variables in to it.

Descriptive statistics for the variables has been shown alongside. By looking at the mean it
can be said that all the 5 measurement parameters are influencing the service dimensions
more or less equally.
KMO that is (Kaiser Meyer and Olkin) and Bartlett’s test has been shown below this tells us
about the strength of relationship among the variables. The KMO test measures the sampling
adequacy that is whether the responses provided by sample are adequate or not .

Kaiser recommends 0.5 as the bare minimum and values above 0.9 as superb. From the
above table it can be seen that that the value is greater than 0.9 which accounts for excellent
adequacy of sample.
Bartlett’s test is also another test for relationship among variables and if the significance value
is below 0.05, then in this case null hypothesis is rejected that is correlation matrix is an identity
matrix is rejected. In the result obtained above the significance value is 0. This shows that the
data obtained are suitable for factor analysis.

From the above table, it can be seen that eigenvalues reflects the number of extracted factors
sum of which should be equal to total number of items that are subjected to factor analysis.
Here, Factor 1 accounts for 36% of total variance similarly 2 nd factor 45.7%, 3rd factor 53.2%,
4th factor 58.7%, 5th and 6th accounts for 63.5% and 67.6% of total variance. The remaining
factors are not significant.
The graph above is known as scree plot and it shows the graph of eigenvalues against all
the factors which are there. This is helpful for identifying how many factors to retain in the
analysis. In the graph shown above 6 factors are above eigenvalue of 1. So, these are the
factors to retain.

Rotated component matrix is used to reduce the number of

factors and retain those variables which have high loading
onto the factors. Rotation makes the interpretation of result
easier. Here, coefficients smaller than 0.05 have been
suppressed and only those variables which have strong
correlation with the factor scores have been retained. To
minimize the problem of cross loading Varimax rotation has
been used. For, further analysis these factors can be used
as variables to simplify the result.
In the table given above, component 1 deals with Altruistic
Value, component 2 with Aesthetics, component 3 with
Quality, component 4 with Efficiency, component 5 with
Social Value, component 6 with Play.

Similarly, measurement of loyalty dimension was done on 4

parameters – Cognitive, Affective, Conative and
Behavioural brand loyalty. These measurement items for
loyalty were judged on the rating obtained on 4 questions.

This in all amounts to 16 questions wherein respondents

were asked to give their response based on a 5 point likert
scale, ranging from 5 being “strongly agree” and 1 being “strongly disagree.”

Descriptive statistics for the variables has been shown

alongside. By looking at the mean it can be said that all the
4 measurement parameters influences the loyalty
dimensions more or less equally.
 Kaiser recommends
0.5 as the bare
minimum and values
above 0.9 as superb
with respect to
sampling adequacy.
From the above table it
can be seen that that
the value is greater than 0.9 which accounts for excellent adequacy of sample.
Bartlett’s test is also another test for relationship among variables and if the significance
value is below 0.05, then in this case null hypothesis is rejected that is correlation matrix is an
identity matrix is rejected. In the result obtained above the significance value is 0. This shows
that the data
obtained are
suitable for factor
analysis.

From the above

total variance similarly 2nd
factors are not significant.
table, it can be seen
that eigenvalues
reflects the number
of extracted factors
sum of which should
be equal to total
number of items that
are subjected to
factor analysis.
Here, Factor 1
accounts for 51% of
factor 59.6%, 3rd factor 66.2%, 4th factor 71.8%. The remaining

Here too in the rotated component matrix, coefficients

smaller than 0.05 have been suppressed and only those
variables which have strong correlation with the factor
scores have been retained. To minimize the problem of
cross loading Varimax rotation has been used. For,
further analysis these factors can be used as variables to
simplify the result.

In the table given above, component 1 deals with

Cognitive brand loyalty, component 2 with Affective brand
loyalty, component 3 with Behavioural brand loyalty,
component 4 with Component brand loyalty.
To further simplify the result summated scores of all the 6
factors of service dimensions and all the 4 factors of
loyalty dimensions can be obtained. For example,
summated score of
-
Efficiency (EFF) = (EFF3+EFF4+EFF5)/3 .

Given, along side is the table showing

descriptive statistics of all the summated
scores of factors pertaining to service value
and loyalty dimensions.

Further, all the 4 Loyalty factors can be

individually taken as dependent variable
and can be regressed with factors related
to service dimensions to know about the
correlation between them. As an example,
in the table given below Cogl (Cognitive
Brand Loyalty) is used as a dependent
variable and is regressed with Altc,
Qual, Eff, Play, Aes, Sov

In the table given, the significance value

comes out to be 0. Thus there is a
relationship of Cogl with the factors of
service value dimensions. To know about
the exactly with which factors Cogl forms a
relationship we look at coefficients matrix
and see that the constant term comes out
to be 0.26. Thus, the equation formed is Cogl = 0.26 +
0.117*Qual . Similarly, other equations can be formed easily. To know about the relationship,
significance level can be looked at and except for eff, there is a relationship of Cogl with other
factors.

Other results are provided below,

Dependent variable: Affl (Affective brand loyalty)

Dependent Variable: Cont (Conative brand loyalty)
Dependent Variable: Behl ( Behavioural Brand Loyalty)