Title- AI Tools Preference Survey Using ANOVA: Single Factor
Author- Harshit Dubey.
Introduction–
AI tools play a crucial role in automating tasks, enhancing decision-making, and improving efficiency across various industries. They analyze large datasets, recognize patterns, and make predictions, helping businesses optimize processes and reduce human error. AI tools also enable natural language processing, image recognition, and personalized recommendations, transforming user experiences in sectors like healthcare, finance, and customer service. Their adaptability allows them to assist in both routine and complex tasks, driving innovation and productivity.
AI Tools preference attracts different levels of interest among audiences. This report focuses on understanding the preferences of students at ITM Business School by analysing their ratings for four major AI Tools preference. A statistical method, ANOVA: Single Factor, is used to determine if there is a significant difference in the ratings given to these AI Tools.
Objective-To find out if there are significant differences in the preferences (ratings) of ITM students for the AI Tools
Data Collection: Students of ITM Business School were surveyed. Each student rated four AI Tools preference i.e. ChatGPT, Gemini, Quil Bolt, Copilot on a scale of 1 to 10, were 1 indicates low preference and 10 indicates high preference. The ratings for each genre were recorded for analysis.
Data Analysis-
The ANOVA: Single Factor test was performed to compare the means of the ratings across the four AI Tools.
The hypotheses for the test are:
- Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in the average ratings of ChatGPT, Gemini, Quil Bolt, Copilott.
- Alternate Hypothesis (H1) At least one of the AI Tools has a significantly different average rating.
The results of the ANOVA: Single Factor test are as follows:
|
Anova: Single Factor |
||||||
|
SUMMARY |
||||||
|
Groups |
Count |
Sum |
Average |
Variance |
||
|
chatgpt |
25 |
224 |
8.96 |
0.54 |
||
|
gemini |
25 |
202 |
8.08 |
0.66 |
||
|
quil bolt |
25 |
181 |
7.24 |
1.523333 |
||
|
copilot |
25 |
198 |
7.92 |
2.41 |
||
|
ANOVA |
||||||
|
Source of Variation |
SS |
df |
MS |
F |
P-value |
F crit |
|
Between Groups |
37.55 |
3 |
12.51667 |
9.753247 |
1.11846E-05 |
2.699393 |
|
Within Groups |
123.2 |
96 |
1.283333 |
|||
|
Total |
160.75 |
99 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Since the p-value (1.118465) is greater than the standard significance level of 0.05, we accept the null hypothesis.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference in the AI Tools ratings given by the ITM students