ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS
(SOURCE: Primary Data)
INTENTION OF PURCHASING PROPERTY
Table showing Intention of purchase a property for
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Investments 51 63.8 63.8 63.8
Residential 29 36.2 36.2 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, it is inferred that 63.8% of the respondents are belongs to
investments and 36.2% of the respondents are belongs to residential.
1
HOW YOU KNOW THIS PROPERTY
Table showing How you know this property
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid TV Ad 16 20.0 20.0 20.0
Paper Ad 18 22.5 22.5 42.5
Word of
20 25.0 25.0 67.5
mouth
Banner 23 28.8 28.8 96.2
Stall 3 3.8 3.8 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, it is inferred that 28.8% of the respondents were known this
property through banner, 25% of the respondents were known this property through word of
mouth, 22.5% of the respondents were known this property through paper ad, 20% of the
respondents were known this property through TV Ad, 3.8% of the respondents were known
this property through stall.
2
TVH FOCUS ON MY NEEDS AND FULFILL MY EXPECTATIONS
Table showing TVH focus on my needs and fulfill my expectations
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Dissatisfied 4 5.0 5.0 5.0
Neutral 16 20.0 20.0 25.0
Satisfied 31 38.8 38.8 63.8
Strongly
29 36.2 36.2 100.0
satisfied
Total 80 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION:
From the table, it is inferred that 38.8% of the respondents are agree with that they
have trust on TVH real estate firm, 36.2% of the respondents are strongly agree with that they
have trust on TVH real estate firm, 20% of the respondents are neither agree nor disagree
with that they have trust on TVH real estate firm, 5% of the respondents are disagree with
that they have trust on TVH real estate firm,
3
I HAVE TRUST ON TVH REAL ESTATE FIRM
Table showing I have trust on TVH real estate firm
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Dissatisfied 3 3.8 3.8 3.8
Neutral 28 35.0 35.0 38.8
Satisfied 33 41.2 41.2 80.0
Strongly
16 20.0 20.0 100.0
satisfied
Total 80 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION:
From the table, it is inferred that 41.2% of the respondents are agree with that they
have trust on TVH real estate firm, 35% of the respondents are neither agree nor disagree
with that they have trust on TVH real estate firm, 20% of the respondents are strongly agree
with that they have trust on TVH real estate firm, 3.8% of the respondents are disagree with
that they have trust on TVH real estate firm,
4
ANOVA ANALYSIS
AGE AND CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference between age and customer loyalty
Alternative Hypothesis (H1: There is no significant difference between age and customer
loyalty
ANOVA
Age
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between
18.618 9 2.069 2.307 .025
Groups
Within Groups 62.769 70 .897
Total 81.387 79
INTERPRETATION
Since the significant value is 0.025.It is concluded that there is a significant difference
between age and customer loyalty.
5
CORRELATION ANALYSIS:1
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND CUSTOMER
LOYALTY
Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant relationship between customer satisfaction and
customer loyalty
Alternative Hypothesis (H1: There is no significant relationship between customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty
Correlations
customer customer
satisfaction loyalty
customer Pearson
1 .318**
satisfaction Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .004
N 80 80
customer loyalty Pearson
.318** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .004
N 80 80
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
INTERPRETATION
Since the Pearson Correlation value is 0.318. It is concluded that there is a low
positive correlation between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty
6
CORRELATION ANALYSIS: 2
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND SERVICE
QUALITY
Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant relationship between customer satisfaction and
service quality
Alternative Hypothesis (H1: There is no significant relationship between customer
satisfaction and service quality
Correlations
Customer Service
satisfaction quality
Customer Pearson
1 -.024
satisfaction Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .835
N 80 80
Service quality Pearson
-.024 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .835
N 80 80
INTERPRETATION
Since the Pearson Correlation is -0.024. It is concluded that there is a very low
negative correlation between customer satisfaction and service quality.
7
T-TEST ANALYSIS
GENDER AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference between gender and customer
satisfaction
Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference between gender and customer
satisfaction
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Sig. Interval of the
(2- Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Customer Equal
-
satisfaction variances 2.822 .097 78 .099 -1.219 .730 -2.672 .233
1.671
assumed
Equal
variances -
44.144 .030 -1.219 .544 -2.317 -.122
not 2.240
assumed
INTERPRETATION
Since the significant value is 0.099. It is concluded that there is no significance
difference between gender and customer satisfaction
8
REGRESSION ANALYSIS: 1
IMPACT OF SERVICE QUALITY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Null Hypothesis H0: There is no impact of service quality on customer satisfaction.
Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is impact of service quality on customer satisfaction
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta T Sig.
1 (Constant) 18.990 3.439 5.523 .000
Service
-.008 .037 -.024 -.209 .835
quality
a. Dependent Variable: customer satisfaction
INTERPRETATION:
Since the significant value is 0.835, that There is a impact of service quality on
customer satisfaction.
9
REGRESSION ANALYSIS: 2
IMPACT OF SERVICE QUALITY ON CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Null Hypothesis H0: There is no impact of service quality on customer loyalty.
Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is a impact of service quality on customer loyalty.
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta T Sig.
1 (Constant) 11.528 2.358 4.889 .000
Service
.083 .025 .348 3.277 .002
quality
a. Dependent Variable: customer loyalty
INTERPRETATION:
Since the significant value is 0.002,There is a impact of service quality on customer
loyalty.
10
