TITTLE– FACTOR ANALYSIS OF PRODUCT (SAMSUNG PHONE)
|
Authors |
: |
Dev Modi (021330024336) Ashutosh Shukla (021330024076) Aachman Dixit (021330024001) |
- Cluster Analysis
|
Cluster Membership |
|||
|
Case Number |
VAR00011 |
Cluster |
Distance |
|
1 |
Strongly Disagree |
3 |
2.153 |
|
2 |
Disagree |
3 |
2.102 |
|
3 |
Neutral |
3 |
1.411 |
|
4 |
Agree |
4 |
3.253 |
|
5 |
Strongly Agree |
3 |
2.186 |
|
6 |
6 |
3 |
1.386 |
|
7 |
7 |
2 |
1.037 |
|
8 |
8 |
2 |
1.037 |
|
9 |
9 |
3 |
3.217 |
|
10 |
10 |
3 |
1.623 |
|
11 |
11 |
3 |
1.770 |
|
12 |
12 |
4 |
2.088 |
|
13 |
13 |
2 |
3.883 |
|
14 |
14 |
2 |
1.382 |
|
15 |
15 |
3 |
1.770 |
|
16 |
16 |
2 |
3.378 |
|
17 |
17 |
4 |
3.253 |
|
18 |
18 |
3 |
1.925 |
|
19 |
19 |
2 |
3.095 |
|
20 |
20 |
2 |
2.564 |
|
21 |
21 |
1 |
.000 |
|
22 |
22 |
3 |
1.770 |
|
23 |
23 |
2 |
3.499 |
|
24 |
24 |
4 |
2.910 |
|
25 |
25 |
3 |
2.085 |
|
26 |
26 |
3 |
1.411 |
|
27 |
27 |
3 |
2.313 |
|
28 |
28 |
3 |
1.278 |
|
29 |
29 |
4 |
2.088 |
|
30 |
30 |
4 |
2.477 |
|
31 |
31 |
3 |
1.750 |
|
32 |
32 |
3 |
1.359 |
|
33 |
33 |
3 |
2.505 |
|
34 |
34 |
3 |
1.578 |
|
35 |
35 |
3 |
3.138 |
|
36 |
36 |
3 |
1.770 |
|
37 |
37 |
3 |
1.770 |
|
38 |
38 |
3 |
1.770 |
|
39 |
39 |
3 |
1.770 |
|
40 |
40 |
3 |
1.849 |
|
41 |
41 |
4 |
2.773 |
|
42 |
42 |
3 |
1.770 |
|
43 |
43 |
3 |
1.770 |
|
44 |
44 |
2 |
3.616 |
|
45 |
45 |
2 |
3.451 |
|
46 |
46 |
3 |
2.085 |
|
47 |
47 |
2 |
4.591 |
|
48 |
48 |
2 |
2.253 |
|
49 |
49 |
4 |
2.088 |
|
50 |
50 |
4 |
1.117 |
- Interpretation:
The table represents a cluster analysis with case numbers, response categories, cluster assignments, and distances from the cluster centers. Cases were grouped into four clusters based on their responses, with distances indicating how closely each case aligns with the assigned cluster. Cluster 3 contains the largest number of cases, with distances generally under 2, suggesting high cohesion within this group. Cluster 4 has a few cases with higher distances, suggesting some variability. Clusters 2 and 4 contain cases with larger distances (e.g., 3.883 in Cluster 2 and 3.253 in Cluster 4), indicating potential outliers or less cohesive clustering within these groups. This distribution suggests a dominant response trend around neutral to slight disagreement (Clusters 2 and 3), with other clusters representing more distinct opinion categories.
- Anova
|
ANOVA |
||||
|
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
|
|
Innovative Display |
Between Groups |
126.420 |
49 |
2.580 |
|
Within Groups |
.000 |
0 |
. |
|
|
Total |
126.420 |
49 |
|
|
|
Advanced Camera |
Between Groups |
109.520 |
49 |
2.235 |
|
Within Groups |
.000 |
0 |
. |
|
|
Total |
109.520 |
49 |
|
|
|
Performance |
Between Groups |
72.080 |
49 |
1.471 |
|
Within Groups |
.000 |
0 |
. |
|
|
Total |
72.080 |
49 |
|
|
|
Battery Life |
Between Groups |
94.480 |
49 |
1.928 |
|
Within Groups |
.000 |
0 |
. |
|
|
Total |
94.480 |
49 |
|
|
|
Customization |
Between Groups |
72.180 |
49 |
1.473 |
|
Within Groups |
.000 |
0 |
. |
|
|
Total |
72.180 |
49 |
|
|
|
5G and Connectivity |
Between Groups |
83.520 |
49 |
1.704 |
|
Within Groups |
.000 |
0 |
. |
|
|
Total |
83.520 |
49 |
|
|
|
Durability |
Between Groups |
94.580 |
49 |
1.930 |
|
Within Groups |
.000 |
0 |
. |
|
|
Total |
94.580 |
49 |
|
|
|
S pen Support |
Between Groups |
96.320 |
49 |
1.966 |
|
Within Groups |
.000 |
0 |
. |
|
|
Total |
96.320 |
49 |
|
|
|
Security |
Between Groups |
102.880 |
49 |
2.100 |
|
Within Groups |
.000 |
0 |
. |
|
|
Total |
102.880 |
49 |
|
|
|
Ecosystem Integration |
Between Groups |
80.320 |
49 |
1.639 |
|
Within Groups |
.000 |
0 |
. |
|
|
Total |
80.320 |
49 |
|
|
- Interpretation:
This ANOVA table presents a comparison of multiple features (e.g., Innovative Display, Advanced Camera, Performance) across different groups, with the “Between Groups” sum of squares indicating variation attributed to differences among the groups for each feature. Each feature’s mean square (sum of squares divided by degrees of freedom) varies, with Innovative Display showing the highest between-groups sum of squares (126.420) and mean square (2.580), indicating substantial variability among groups for this feature. “Within Groups” values are zero, implying no intra-group variation, likely due to identical responses within each group. This suggests that each group has consistent views on these features, and differences arise primarily between groups rather than within them.
In conclusion, the cluster analysis and ANOVA results collectively highlight distinct patterns in responses and variability across groups. The cluster analysis reveals that certain clusters, particularly Cluster 3, show high cohesion, while others, like Clusters 2 and 4, contain potential outliers, indicating varying degrees of alignment with cluster centres. The ANOVA analysis supports this by demonstrating that differences a
- Conclusion:
cross features are primarily between groups, with no significant intra-group variation, suggesting uniform responses within each group. Together, these findings suggest that group distinctions are clear and consistent, with minimal internal differences but notable variability across clusters for certain features.