Individual assignmentDescription individual assignmentWrite an academically referenced paper that you could present to Sfinx Management as a consult

Individual assignmentDescription individual assignmentWrite an academically referenced paper that you could present to Sfinx Management as a consultant, in which you answer the following questions about the Sfinx problem, while using the DMT Case Study Sfinx Online.xlsx, and Sfinx SPSS data:

1. Conduct exploratory factor analysis on the potential scale made up of the Customer service items: X6-X18, in order to examine whether it is actually unidimensional or not (make sure that any negatively worded items have been reversed before proceeding with this analysis). For each analysis report the following: Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy, Bartletts Test of Sphericity, total variance explained, eigenvalue(s) of retained factors, and save and NAME the factors if there is more than one.

2. Assess the emerging factor loadings for each scale item and decide whether any items are performing poorly and should therefore be dropped from further analysis. With the remaining items estimate Cronbach alpha coefficient and item-total correlation per factor. Report the reliability (Cronbach alpha) for each factor you discovered. Also, based on the item-to total correlation analysis decide whether any other items should be dropped from each scale.

3. Calculate average scales (composite scores) for the customer service factors that you discovered in Question 1. Use all items that were retained following your exploratory factor analysis, and leave-one-out or item-to-total correlation procedures. For each summated scale report the average score and standard deviation and give it a meaningful name, dependent on the variables that load on it.

4. Using the average scales created above, perform test analyses (which one is appropriate?) to examine whether there are any significant differences in the levels of X19 Customer service :a) males and females

b) Customer type,

c) Payment method

5. Report exactly what tests you did, what their null hypotheses2 are, what p-values you find, and whether you reject the null Hypotheses or not, and what then is the conclusion in non-statistical jargon.

6. Draw a conceptual model of demographic variables X1-X5 and the customer service quality factors you found above influencing X19 overall customer satisfaction. Do you think you should use moderation?

7. Estimate a regression for that Conceptual model and distil the essential factors (what do you base essential on)?

8. Draw your resulting conceptual model,

9. For each regression model,

a. specify if you chose for simple or multiple regression,

b. assess the level of variance explained and

c. the significance of beta coefficients.

10 Discuss the main conclusions that can be derived from this analysis, regarding the influence of the service factors on customer satisfaction.

11 Given the Cost Sheet in the Sfinx MS Excel file, which explains which service quality variable improvement costs how much, which variables investment would you change? What would be the effect? Would you stay Budget-Neutral? (Note: the coefficients are only valid in a range around the current data, so cranking one of the variables from 3 to 10 would probably not have a linear effect on the DV.)

Submissions should be a report you could present to managers (interested in arguments for conclusions and recommendations) in single spacing, APA style referencing.

Deliverables: Course LMS upload with

A maximum 3000 words long single spacing text reportfor your boss (i.e. normal managerial language!), in preferably ODT, Word, or if the previous are not available PDF format, with

a small intro,

a description of the research problem and research questions,

description of the data preparation process

descriptive statistics (graphically and numerical) of the main variables, make sure the visuals make sense and clarify matters.

description of whatproceduresyou did and why they are appropriate,

their results,

interpretations of the results

conclusion and recommendations

references APA style (10 minimum).

Upload any workout files, twb(x) or xlsx, and publish AzureML models, copy the link into the word document as reference! andshareboth the link and the model with me (v.feltkamp@maastrichtuniversity.nl).

lit review table with coding and URLs of the papers found (doi being preferred).

Tableau file for the visualizations andOrange3, AzureML (link), Realstatistics or other program analysis output as appendix, zip all this together

your data if you collected data.

In case of submission problems, timing is flexible but the submission method is not.In no case will an email submission be allowed. Discuss problems with the lecturer at their email address, or in the course discussion forum.

Assessment rubric individual assignmentPlease only change this section after discussion with the Academic Course Coordinator. In case you adapt this assessment rubric, it also needs to be changed in Moodle as all grading is done directly in Moodle. In this case, please contact the responsible programme administrator for support.

DD Weigh-tingAssessment Criteria Expected performance standards

1 point (very poor) 2 points (unsatisfactory) 3 points (satisfactory) 4 points (good) 5 points (outstanding)

DD1 20% no effort Description of applicable methods not complete or faulty Basic description of methods methods definitely applicable, but descriptions not precise Clearly describes methods that are applicable and useful

DD2 20% no effort application of the methods has severe problems. Basic application, with some errors application of the methods are mostly but not totally correct clearly describes a correct application of the methods chosen.

DD3 20% no effort argumentation is weak, lacks logic, and recommendations do not follow from argumentation Argumentations basically correct. argumentation ok, recommendations dont follow from them or argumentation weak and recommendations make sense argumentation inevitable, recommendations totally to the point and practical

DD4 20% no effort write-up not easy to follow, formatting errors severe. Writeup readable. Language mostly ok but there are some problems with English, or precise phrasing. Write-up uses the correct Statistical phrasing without inventing confusing expressions.

DD5 20% no effort has not made much of an effort to self educate on the topic and methods. Some self study applied, but lacunas exist. Uses literature to find most of the appropriate procedures. extensive literature use and goes way beyond the concepts of the course to learn the appropriate procedures in detail.