August 2012 - December 2012 Formulated a market research analysis of whether or not the campus should construct a parking garage o Data was collected through random sampling using ANOVA, t-test, and multiple regression model tests in order to collect quantitative data proving that students are unsatisfied with the current parking situation of the university o Determined that the students would be willing to pay up to one hundred dollars for a parking garage permit through a created survey o The overall construction was estimate at ten million dollars and would be paid for after ten years through student use

1. Research Analysis: UTPA Parking Garage
Kirk Teegardin
Paul Watkins
December 5, 2012
4482 Fall 2012

2. 2
Table of Contents
Cover…………………………………………………………………………………………...….1
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………...………2-
3
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………….4
Introduction
Background Information…………………………………………………………………..5
Research Problem…………………………………………………………………………5
Research Questions……………………………………………………………………...5-6
Hypotheses…………………………………………………..…………………………….6
Data Collection
Research Design…………………………………………………………………………...7
Selection of Samples………………………………………………………………………7
Sampling Plan…………………………………………………………………………...7-8
Estimation of Sample Size………………………………………………………………...8
Validity and Reliability…………………………………………………...…………….....8
Outliers Excluded………………………………………………………………………….9
Statistical Analysis Assumptions………………………………………..……..………….9

3. 3
Basic Summary of Statistics……………………………….…………………………..9-10
Results
One Sample T-Test……………………………………………………………………....11
Independent Sample T-Test…………………………………………………………..11-12
Chi-Square……………………………………………………………………………12-13
ANOVA………………………………………………………………………………….14
Single Linear Regression Model…………………………………………………………15
Multiple Regression Model…………………………………………………………..15-16
Conclusion and Recommendations……………………………………………………………....17
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………….....18
Appendices
Appendix I: Questionnaire……………………………………………………………19-20
Appendix II: Codebook…………………………………………………………………..21
Appendix III: SPSS Results…………………………………………………………..22-27

4. 4
Executive Summary
The research was authorized by: Kirk Teegardin, and Paul Watkins. We strived to determine the
satisfaction level of the people at the University of Texas at Pan American (UTPA). This would
help us determine the need for an alternative, a parking garage. Several other studies were
conducted with the different grade levels associated with each individual and their satisfaction
level. We believed that many people are currently unsatisfied with the parking situation at the
campus. We also believed that the higher the grade level, such as a senior versus a freshmen,
they would no longer have a desire to change the parking situation; therefore, the seniors would
be more satisfied with the current UTPA parking. The data collected was gathered by having
random people of the business administration and mathematics building, at UTPA, answer the
questionnaire. In total, there were thirty-one participants.
After conducting the research:
 As believed, the people of UTPA are unsatisfied with the parking.
 Surprisingly, seniors are less satisfied with the parking; this may be due to them being at
UTPA for a longer time than the freshmen.
 Students are also willing to pay extra for a parking garage.
The need and want to change the University of Texas Pan American parking is clear. People
would be willing to park at a parking garage if provided. Many are willing to pay seventy-five
dollars a year for such a service.
_______________________ _______________________
Kirk Teegardin Paul Watkins

5. 5
Introduction:
BackgroundInformation:
This study was conducted among fellow students at the University of Texas Pan
American to determine the satisfaction level of the current parking situation. To further
understand the gravity of the parking dilemma we surveyed a range of students from incoming
freshman to graduate students. We are very displeased with the parking as is and devised a
survey to see whether students favored a parking garage in addition to the parking already
available.
ResearchProblem:
Many people spend fifteen to thirty minutes attempting to find parking before class. This
usually results in very long walks in remote parking vastly far away from their classrooms; in
addition to the walk they have to battle the elements of the Rio Grande Valley weather. There
are nineteen thousand UTPA students. From these nineteen thousand, about fifteen thousand
students have a parking permit. As the parking currently is, there is only six thousand and five
hundred parking spot available. This leaves the remaining eight thousand and five hundred
students with a paid parking permit to find a place to park elsewhere.
ResearchQuestion:
We were curious on the satisfaction level people have towards the parking. Since we
believed that the population would have a negative satisfaction level we determined a possible
solution to the problem, a parking garage. As Team Broncs' study previously indicated, people

6. 6
are dissatisfied with the parking at UTPA. We believe that if people are unsatisfied with the
parking they would be willing to try an alternative. In our case, we believe that a parking garage
would adequately increase the satisfaction level of the people that have to park.
Hypotheses:
Our initial hypothesis is that the students of the University of Texas Pan American are
unsatisfied with the parking. (µ = mean of satisfaction level)
H0 = µ = 2
Ha = µ ≠ 2 null
Since seniors are about to graduate, we believe that the seniors are more satisfied with the
universities parking then the freshmen; making the satisfaction level of freshmen and seniors
different. (µ1 = seniors, µ2= freshmen)
H0 = µ1 ≠ µ2 null
Ha = µ1 = µ2
If the first hypothesis proves to be true, then we will determine whether or not students
would be willing to pay extra to park in a parking garage, based on their satisfaction level. (µ1 =
Strongly Disagree, µ2 = Disagree, µ3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, µ4 = agree, µ5 = Strongly
Agree)
H0 = µ1 = µ2 = µ3 = µ4 = µ5
Ha = At least one group is different from the rest

7. 7
Data Collection:
ResearchDesign:
The questionnaire that was created consisted of nine Likert Scale questions with one open
ended questions at the end. The research done was exploratory research trying to determine if
the University of Texas Pan American students would benefit from having a parking garage.
Within this data, age, gender, and grade classification were gathered in order to pinpoint and
associate these demographics about how they feel towards the parking at the University of Texas
Pan American.
SelectionofSamples:
The questionnaire was given to thirty-one random individuals throughout the business
administration and mathematics building. With only these two buildings being where the survey
was distributed made these two buildings the sampling frame. Simple random sampling was
used within these two buildings gathering a mix of gender, age, and grade classification.
Probability sampling was used since everyone in the selected geographic area had the same
probability of being selected. In total, thirty-one people completed the survey in order to
represent UTPA’s population of students.
Sampling Plan:
The target population for the study done was the students that park at the University of
Texas Pan American. These people were targeted, because they are the majority of people that
park in the parking lot. The way we randomly selected individuals was by asking students in

8. 8
classrooms to fill out the questionnaire. Once they finished it, we collected the data and
interpreted into meaningful data.
Estimation of Sample Size:
There are an estimated nineteen thousand students at the University of Texas Pan
American. The sample size of thirty-one is appropriate since the questionnaire had only ten
questions. Originally, we collected over sixty questionnaires, only to find out that thirty of the
questionnaires looked exactly the same. Due to this, we had to toss out the thirty defective
surveys in order for the data we collected to be useful.
Validity and Reliability:
According to Basic Marketing Research, by Churchill, Brown, and Suter, validity is the
extent to which differences in scores on a measuring instrument reflect true differences amount
individuals, groups, or situations in the characteristic that it seeks to measure, or true differences
in the same individual, group, or situation from one occasion to another, rather than systematic or
random errors. The sample used in this study is valid since the questionnaire participants had
different gender, age, and grade classification. Reliability is the ability of a measure to obtain
similar scores for the same object, trait, or construct across time, across different evaluate, or
across the items forming the measure. The reliability of the data collected is worthy. Previously
mentioned, we did not include thirty surveys, due to that the faulty questionnaires would make
the data unreliable. The satisfaction level that people feel towards the universities parking also
correlates with their willingness to pay more for a parking garage; proving the internal
consistency of our findings.

9. 9
Outliers Excluded:
Like all studies done, there are answers that are not correctly answered and cannot be
used. An outlier is a response that is so different in magnitude from the rest of the other
responses that they are treated as a special case. An example that occurred when asking for the
price to pay for a parking garage permit the participant selected all of the answers. This makes it
difficult to ascertain what the person is willing to pay, therefore his/her response to this question
was left out. Another outlier that was excluded was the participant that responded to have the
parking garage at any of the three locations mentioned in the questionnaire. They may have
meant to state the necessity the feel towards having a parking garage and that they would be
satisfied if it was located in any of the three locations. Despite this, the information provided by
him/her was not used because they did not pick a single location that would best suit their needs.
StatisticalAnalysis Assumptions:
We assume that the majority of the students are unsatisfied with the parking at the
University of Texas Pan American. The students of the campus are also willing to pay more for
a parking garage. Another prediction we made is that there is not a significant correlation
between age, grade level, and the unsatisfied level of the students of the university; which is
tested in the liner regression models.
Basic Summary of Statistics:
The statistics gathered from thirty-one participants were used to calculate several tests
using SPSS. Some basic statistics calculated was the mean of satisfaction of the parking at the
University of Texas Pan American, 2.03. This mean displays that the students are not satisfied

10. 10
with the parking at the university. Another simple calculation determined was the amount of
students that are willing to pay more. Even the students that are satisfied with the university
parking believe that paying $101.00 - $150.00 is a reasonable price for a parking garage permit.

11. 11
Results:
One Sample T-Test:
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Satisfaction 31 2.03 1.016 .182
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 2
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Satisfaction .177 30 .861 .032 -.34 .40
Interpretation: the above tables display the results from the one sample t-test. The sample size of
thirty-one was asked what their current satisfaction level was with the parking at the University
of Texas Pan American, with the use of Likert Scale of 1-5. The results produced a mean of 2.03
displaying the satisfaction. This means that we reject the null hypothesis; students are satisfied
with the universities parking.
Independent Sample T-Test:
Group Statistics
Grade Level N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Satisfaction
dimension1
Freshmen 4 2.00 1.414 .707
Senior 13 1.92 1.038 .288
Independent Samples Test

12. 12
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Satisfaction Equal variances
assumed
.1
8
3
.675 .120 15 .906 .077 .642 -1.292 1.446
Equal variances
not assumed
.101 4.049 .925 .077 .763 -2.033 2.187
Interpretation: the above table compared seniors versus freshmen and their satisfaction level with
the University of Texas Pan American parking. Our second hypothesis was that seniors are more
satisfied with the parking, because they are about to graduate. It was proven in our research that
seniors are actually less satisfied than the freshmen. The two mean's are almost the same, so we
round up making them equal. Therefore, we accept the null hypothesis that seniors are not
equally dissatisfied and so we conclude that seniors and freshmen are both equally dissatisfied
with the parking at the campus.
Chi-Square:
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.916a 8 .657
Likelihood Ratio 6.769 8 .562
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.489 1 .222
N of Valid Cases 29
a. 13 cells (86.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .03.

13. 13
Location * Grade Level Crosstabulation
Grade Level
TotalFreshmen Sophomore Junior Senior
Graduate
Student
Location Location
1
Count 0 0 1 0 0 1
% within Location .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within Grade
Level
.0% .0% 9.1% .0% .0% 3.4%
% of Total .0% .0% 3.4% .0% .0% 3.4%
Location
2
Count 1 1 5 10 1 18
% within Location 5.6% 5.6% 27.8% 55.6% 5.6% 100.0%
% within Grade
Level
33.3% 100.0% 45.5% 76.9% 100.0% 62.1%
% of Total 3.4% 3.4% 17.2% 34.5% 3.4% 62.1%
Location
3
Count 2 0 5 3 0 10
% within Location 20.0% .0% 50.0% 30.0% .0% 100.0%
% within Grade
Level
66.7% .0% 45.5% 23.1% .0% 34.5%
% of Total 6.9% .0% 17.2% 10.3% .0% 34.5%
Total Count 3 1 11 13 1 29
% within Location 10.3% 3.4% 37.9% 44.8% 3.4% 100.0%
% within Grade
Level
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 10.3% 3.4% 37.9% 44.8% 3.4% 100.0%
Interpretation: the Chi-Square tested the different locations that the researchers believed would
be good places for the parking garage to be located. The majority of people liked location two,
which is located across the educational complex. Several participants of the questionnaire
responded with all three locations; therefore their response was tossed out in order to have
accurate results.

14. 14
ANOVA:
Descriptives
Satisfaction
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95%
Confidence
Interval for
Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Strongly Disagree 2 2.50 2.121 1.500 -16.56 21.56 1 4
Disagree 2 2.50 .707 .500 -3.85 8.85 2 3
Neutral 7 2.86 .900 .340 2.03 3.69 2 4
Agree 12 1.58 .669 .193 1.16 2.01 1 3
Strongly Agree 8 1.75 1.035 .366 .88 2.62 1 4
Total 31 2.03 1.016 .182 1.66 2.40 1 4
ANOVA
Satisfaction
Sum of Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between Groups 8.694 4 2.173 2.537 .064
Within Groups 22.274 26 .857
Total 30.968 30
Interpretation: the ANOVA tested the satisfaction level with the willing to pay extra for a
parking garage. The significance of 0.064 shows that there is a relationship between the
satisfaction level and the willingness to pay for a parking garage. A total of twenty people
agreed that they agree to pay more for a parking garage; because of this, we do not accept our
third hypothesis that different satisfaction levels of students are willing to pay the same for a
parking garage. This means that satisfaction level of the parking does not fully justify the
amount the participants are willing to pay for a parking garage permit.

15. 15
Single Linear RegressionModel:
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression .311 1 .311 .294 .592a
Residual 30.657 29 1.057
Total 30.968 30
a. Predictors:(Constant),Grade Level
b. DependentVariable:Satisfaction
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
95.0% Confidence Interval for
B
B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 (Constant) 2.343 .602 3.892 .001 1.112 3.574
Grade Level -.097 .179 -.100 -.542 .592 -.464 .270
a. DependentVariable:Satisfaction
Interpretation: with this single regression model we wanted to see if the grade level of a student
affected their overall satisfaction level of the parking at the University of Texas Pan American.
The significance of 0.592 proves that grade level does not have a correlation to the satisfaction
level of the parking.
Multiple RegressionModel:
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression .344 2 .172 .157 .855a
Residual 30.624 28 1.094
Total 30.968 30
a. Predictors:(Constant), Age, Grade Level
b. DependentVariable:Satisfaction
Coefficientsa

16. 16
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
95.0% Confidence Interval for
B
B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 (Constant) 2.29
1
.681 3.363 .002 .895 3.686
Grade Level -.107 .191 -.110 -.561 .579 -.497 .284
Age .043 .245 .034 .175 .862 -.459 .545
a. DependentVariable:Satisfaction
Interpretation: this multiple regression model once again tested grade level, along with age, to
determine if there is a link to the satisfaction level of students. Like the previous test, the
significance of the grade level proves that there is no link to the satisfaction level. The
significance of 0.862 for age also proves that age does not have a correlation with a student’s
satisfaction level. One might argue that these findings prove useless. Our research team
believes that the grade level and age not correlating with the satisfaction level indicates that these
findings can be used for several years. As new students come in and as adult students come in
their age will not affect their desire for a parking garage.

17. 17
Conclusions and Recommendations:
We have concluded those students are not satisfied with the parking of the University of
Texas Pan American. Since the problem is identified; the solution we believe that is adequate to
equate to this problem is to build a parking garage. Many of the students of the university are
willing to pay over one hundred dollars for a parking garage permit. On average, a parking
garage cost about nine million dollars to construct. If the parking garage provided nine thousand
parking spots, charging 100 dollars a year the money for the parking garage would be paid off in
ten years. The parking garage is quite expensive but it would also make the University of Texas
Pan American for appealing to students deciding on where to go to college. Having a parking
garage may also make it possible to create a campus football team, a study done by team
adventures. The grade levels of the students did not impact their satisfaction level. This
indicates that even the upper class would be willing to pay for a parking garage. Location two
was the prime choice of selection in the questionnaire. This location currently has a parking lot
that was constructed poorly. They did not make effective use of the parking lot and could have
put in at least an extra ten spots. Despite the extra ten spots, having nine thousands spots
available would make it possible for many people to park their cars; not having to walk for ten
minutes. It is recommended that the university conducts their own study over the entire
University of Texas Pan American population using our research as guide in order to determine
whether or not to construct a parking garage.

18. 18
Limitations:
The research done had several limitations due to the adequate time and resources
available. The amount of participants that were in our study was only thirty-one. It would have
been better to have a larger sample size in order to have more accurate results. Another
limitation that occurred was on the questionnaire, number eight. The students that are satisfied
with the parking and that said they disagree on willing to pay more did not have an option on
question eight. They were forced to select a response, despite their previous responses.

19. 19
Appendices:
Appendix I: Questionnaire
UTPA Parking Survey
Instructions: The purpose of this survey is to gather accurate information on the current UTPA parking
situation that frustrates many students and faculty. This survey should take about five minutes to
complete. Please answer all the questions listed below. Thank you for your time. (Bubble in your
response when applicable). Contact Information: Email: kateegardin@broncs.utpa.edu
1) What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
2) How old are you?
o 18-20
o 21-24
o 25-30
o 31-40
o 41-50
o 51+
3) What is your current student designation?
o Freshmen
o Sophomore
o Junior
o Senior
o Graduate Student
o UTPA Faculty
4) I am satisfied with the UTPA parking situation
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly
Agree
5) I would be willing to park in a UTPA parking garage if provided
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly
Agree
6) Do you currently have a UTPA parking permit?
o Yes
o No

20. 20
7) I would you be willing to pay extra for a parking permit that allows me to access to the parking garage
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
LOOK AT BACK
8) How much would you be willing to pay for this UTPA Parking Garage Permit?
o $75.00 - $100.00
o $101.00 - $150.00
o $151.00 - $200
9) Which location would you like the UTPA Parking Garage to
be located?
o Location 1. Across Recreation Facility
o Location 2. Across the Business Administration
Building
o Location 3. Across the Health and Physical Education
Building
10) Please describe your satisfaction level with the UTPA parking situation
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION
(Use the map above)

21. 21
Appendix II: Codebook
The above table is the codebook used to interpret the data.
The above table is the data used to come up with the research design results we have calculated.
Respondant Number Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10
1 1 2 4 1 4 2 4 1 2 1
2 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 1 1
3 1 2 4 3 3 2 3 1 3 2
4 1 1 3 1 5 1 5 1 1 1
5 1 2 3 2 5 1 5 1 3 1
6 2 1 3 2 4 1 4 1 3 1
7 1 3 3 1 5 1 5 3 3 1
8 1 1 3 2 5 1 4 2 2 1
9 1 2 4 1 5 1 4 1 2
10 2 2 4 2 4 1 4 2 2 4
11 2 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 2 1
12 1 2 4 1 5 1 4 1 3 1
13 1 2 4 1 4 1 4 1 2 1
14 2 2 4 2 4 1 3 1 2 1
15 1 2 4 3 3 2 3 3 3
16 1 2 4 4 5 1 5 1 2 2
17 2 2 3 4 1 1 1 2
18 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
19 1 2 4 3 1 1 2 1 2 4
20 2 4 5 2 4 1 2 2 1
21 1 4 4 2 5 1 5 1 2 1
22 2 1 3 2 5 1 5 1 2 1
23 1 3 3 2 5 1 3 1 2 1
24 2 1 3 3 4 1 4 1 2 2
25 2 1 3 2 4 1 4 1 3 1
26 2 2 3 1 4 1 5 1 2 1
27 2 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 3 3
28 1 2 1 4 4 1 3 1 2 2
29 2 2 3 2 1 1 3 1 3 1
30 1 3 1 1 5 1 5 1 3 1
31 1 2 2 4 5 1 3 1 2 1
Number Question Code
1 What is your gender? 1=Male, 2=Female
2 How old are you? 1=18-20, 2=21-24, 3=25-30, 4=41-50, 5=51+
3 What is your current student designation? 1=Freshmen, 2=Sophomore, 3=Junior, 4=Senior, 5=Graduate Student, 6=UTPA Faculty
4 I amsastified with the UTPA parking situation 1=Stongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neaither Agree or Disagree, 4=Agree, 5= Strongly Agree
5 I would be willing to park in a UTPA parking garage ifprovided 1=Stongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neaither Agree or Disagree, 4=Agree, 5= Strongly Agree
6 Do you currently have a UTPA parking permit? 1=Yes, 2=No
7 I would you be willing to pay extra for a parking permit that allows me to access to the parking garage 1=Stongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neaither Agree or Disagree, 4=Agree, 5= Strongly Agree
8 How much would you be willing to pay for this UTPA Parking Garage Permit? 1=$75-100, 2=$101-150, 3=$151-200, 4=Other
9 Which location would you like the UTPA Parking Garage to be located? 1= Location 1, 2=Location 2, 3=Location 3
10 Please describe your satisfaction levelwith the UTPA parking situation 1=Dissatisfied, 2=Satsified, 3=Indifferent, 4=Graduating Soon, does not care

22. 22
Appendix III: SPSS results
T-Test
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Satisfaction 31 2.03 1.016 .182
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 2
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Satisfaction .177 30 .861 .032 -.34 .40
T-Test
Group Statistics
Grade Level N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Satisfaction
dimension1
Freshmen 4 2.00 1.414 .707
Senior 13 1.92 1.038 .288
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference

23. 23
Lower Upper
Satisfaction Equal
variances
assumed
.183 .675 .120 15 .906 .077 .642 -1.292 1.446
Equal
variances not
assumed
.101 4.049 .925 .077 .763 -2.033 2.187
Crosstabs
Location * Grade Level Crosstabulation
Grade Level
TotalFreshmen Sophomore Junior Senior
Graduate
Student
Location Location
1
Count 0 0 1 0 0 1
% within Location .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within Grade
Level
.0% .0% 9.1% .0% .0% 3.4%
% of Total .0% .0% 3.4% .0% .0% 3.4%
Location
2
Count 1 1 5 10 1 18
% within Location 5.6% 5.6% 27.8% 55.6% 5.6% 100.0%
% within Grade
Level
33.3% 100.0% 45.5% 76.9% 100.0% 62.1%
% of Total 3.4% 3.4% 17.2% 34.5% 3.4% 62.1%
Location
3
Count 2 0 5 3 0 10
% within Location 20.0% .0% 50.0% 30.0% .0% 100.0%
% within Grade
Level
66.7% .0% 45.5% 23.1% .0% 34.5%
% of Total 6.9% .0% 17.2% 10.3% .0% 34.5%
Total Count 3 1 11 13 1 29
% within Location 10.3% 3.4% 37.9% 44.8% 3.4% 100.0%
% within Grade
Level
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 10.3% 3.4% 37.9% 44.8% 3.4% 100.0%

24. 24
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.916a
8 .657
Likelihood Ratio 6.769 8 .562
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.489 1 .222
N of Valid Cases 29
a. 13 cells (86.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .03.

25. 25
Oneway
Descriptives
Satisfaction
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound
Strongly Disagree 2 2.50 2.121 1.500 -16.56 21.56 1 4
Disagree 2 2.50 .707 .500 -3.85 8.85 2 3
Neutral 7 2.86 .900 .340 2.03 3.69 2 4
Agree 12 1.58 .669 .193 1.16 2.01 1 3
Strongly Agree 8 1.75 1.035 .366 .88 2.62 1 4
Total 31 2.03 1.016 .182 1.66 2.40 1 4
ANOVA
Satisfaction
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 8.694 4 2.173 2.537 .064
Within Groups 22.274 26 .857
Total 30.968 30
Post Hoc Tests
Multiple Comparisons
Satisfaction
LSD
(I) Pay Extra (J) Pay Extra
Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Strongly Disagree Disagree .000 .926 1.000 -1.90 1.90
Neutral -.357 .742 .634 -1.88 1.17
Agree .917 .707 .206 -.54 2.37
Strongly Agree .750 .732 .315 -.75 2.25
Disagree Strongly Disagree .000 .926 1.000 -1.90 1.90
Neutral -.357 .742 .634 -1.88 1.17

26. 26
Agree .917 .707 .206 -.54 2.37
Strongly Agree .750 .732 .315 -.75 2.25
Neutral Strongly Disagree .357 .742 .634 -1.17 1.88
Disagree .357 .742 .634 -1.17 1.88
Agree 1.274*
.440 .008 .37 2.18
Strongly Agree 1.107*
.479 .029 .12 2.09
Agree Strongly Disagree -.917 .707 .206 -2.37 .54
Disagree -.917 .707 .206 -2.37 .54
Neutral -1.274*
.440 .008 -2.18 -.37
Strongly Agree -.167 .422 .696 -1.04 .70
Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree -.750 .732 .315 -2.25 .75
Disagree -.750 .732 .315 -2.25 .75
Neutral -1.107* .479 .029 -2.09 -.12
Agree .167 .422 .696 -.70 1.04
*. The mean difference is significantatthe 0.05 level.
Regression
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression .311 1 .311 .294 .592a
Residual 30.657 29 1.057
Total 30.968 30
a. Predictors:(Constant),Grade Level
b. DependentVariable:Satisfaction
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
95.0% Confidence Interval for
B
B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 (Constant) 2.343 .602 3.892 .001 1.112 3.574
Grade Level -.097 .179 -.100 -.542 .592 -.464 .270
a. DependentVariable:Satisfaction

27. 27
Regression
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression .344 2 .172 .157 .855a
Residual 30.624 28 1.094
Total 30.968 30
a. Predictors:(Constant),Age, Grade Level
b. DependentVariable:Satisfaction
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
95.0% Confidence Interval for
B
B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 (Constant) 2.291 .681 3.363 .002 .895 3.686
Grade Level -.107 .191 -.110 -.561 .579 -.497 .284
Age .043 .245 .034 .175 .862 -.459 .545
a. DependentVariable:Satisfaction