Imc Campaign
Assessment 4- Data Analysis Report
Factor 1- Safety- This factor measures the extent of how safe individuals believe public transport is.
A high score on this factor would mean- That the individual perceives public transport as quite a safe option for them to take.
Relationships found in this factor (safety) include- * Quite a significant relationship with regular transport use with a P-value of 0.01, where regular users scored a mean of 4.1 whilst non-users only scores 3.2 * A relationship with number of public transport days with moderate strength where r=0.67 and P value=0.02 * There seemed to be a relationship between this factor and the residence and their destination as post hoc tests suggested that individuals travelling to and from the western suburbs scored lower * Seems to be a quite a strong relationship with sex as P value=0.01, where male scored an average of 3.9 and females only scored 2.4 * Along with factors 2 and 3, a slight relationship was shown with income, where people with the two upper brackets rate this factor slightly lower than those in lower brackets * Factor 4 and age also showed a weak correlation with r=-0.32 and r=-0.41
Factor 2- Convenience- This factor measures the extent to how convenient public transport is perceived.
A high score on this factor would mean- that convenience of public transport is rated quite highly by the individual.
Relationships found in this factor (convenience) include- * Relationships of moderate strength with Factor 4 and number of public transport days is shown with r=0.61, P value=0.02 and r=0.64, P value= 0.03 * Regular public transport users reports a substantially higher score, with a P-value of 0.01 * Just like in factor 1, there seemed to be a relationship between this factor and the residence and their destination as post hoc tests suggested that individuals travelling to and from the western suburbs scored lower. * There is a moderate relationship with
Factor 1- Safety- This factor measures the extent of how safe individuals believe public transport is.
A high score on this factor would mean- That the individual perceives public transport as quite a safe option for them to take.
Relationships found in this factor (safety) include- * Quite a significant relationship with regular transport use with a P-value of 0.01, where regular users scored a mean of 4.1 whilst non-users only scores 3.2 * A relationship with number of public transport days with moderate strength where r=0.67 and P value=0.02 * There seemed to be a relationship between this factor and the residence and their destination as post hoc tests suggested that individuals travelling to and from the western suburbs scored lower * Seems to be a quite a strong relationship with sex as P value=0.01, where male scored an average of 3.9 and females only scored 2.4 * Along with factors 2 and 3, a slight relationship was shown with income, where people with the two upper brackets rate this factor slightly lower than those in lower brackets * Factor 4 and age also showed a weak correlation with r=-0.32 and r=-0.41
Factor 2- Convenience- This factor measures the extent to how convenient public transport is perceived.
A high score on this factor would mean- that convenience of public transport is rated quite highly by the individual.
Relationships found in this factor (convenience) include- * Relationships of moderate strength with Factor 4 and number of public transport days is shown with r=0.61, P value=0.02 and r=0.64, P value= 0.03 * Regular public transport users reports a substantially higher score, with a P-value of 0.01 * Just like in factor 1, there seemed to be a relationship between this factor and the residence and their destination as post hoc tests suggested that individuals travelling to and from the western suburbs scored lower. * There is a moderate relationship with