WOLAITA SODO UNIVERSITY
School of Graduate Studies
Master of Business Administration (MBA)
Project Design and Analysis
Individual Assignment
Software Assignment for Master of Business
Administration (MBA) Candidates
Student’s Name: Matusal Desta Bibiso
ID No: PGW/91050/15
1.
Frequency Table
Gender
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid female 52 52.0 52.0 52.0
male 48 48.0 48.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Marital Status
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid married 53 53.0 53.0 53.0
otherwise 47 47.0 47.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Birth Location
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid rural 53 53.0 53.0 53.0
urban 47 47.0 47.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Frequencies
Statistics
Daily wage
earning in Birr Number of Ages Family Size Years of School Years of Labor
N Valid 100 100 100 100 100
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Frequency Table
Daily wage earning in Birr
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid .53 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.63 1 1.0 1.0 2.0
1.67 1 1.0 1.0 3.0
2.00 1 1.0 1.0 4.0
2.50 1 1.0 1.0 5.0
2.90 2 2.0 2.0 7.0
2.91 1 1.0 1.0 8.0
2.93 1 1.0 1.0 9.0
3.00 3 3.0 3.0 12.0
3.10 2 2.0 2.0 14.0
3.24 1 1.0 1.0 15.0
3.25 3 3.0 3.0 18.0
3.26 1 1.0 1.0 19.0
3.40 1 1.0 1.0 20.0
3.50 3 3.0 3.0 23.0
3.51 1 1.0 1.0 24.0
3.60 2 2.0 2.0 26.0
3.65 1 1.0 1.0 27.0
3.71 1 1.0 1.0 28.0
3.75 1 1.0 1.0 29.0
4.00 3 3.0 3.0 32.0
4.25 1 1.0 1.0 33.0
4.27 1 1.0 1.0 34.0
4.38 1 1.0 1.0 35.0
4.50 4 4.0 4.0 39.0
4.65 1 1.0 1.0 40.0
4.68 1 1.0 1.0 41.0
4.81 1 1.0 1.0 42.0
4.91 1 1.0 1.0 43.0
5.00 3 3.0 3.0 46.0
5.30 1 1.0 1.0 47.0
5.50 1 1.0 1.0 48.0
5.71 2 2.0 2.0 50.0
5.91 1 1.0 1.0 51.0
6.00 3 3.0 3.0 54.0
6.15 1 1.0 1.0 55.0
6.25 4 4.0 4.0 59.0
6.33 1 1.0 1.0 60.0
6.38 1 1.0 1.0 61.0
6.50 1 1.0 1.0 62.0
6.67 1 1.0 1.0 63.0
6.88 1 1.0 1.0 64.0
7.14 1 1.0 1.0 65.0
7.50 2 2.0 2.0 67.0
7.78 2 2.0 2.0 69.0
7.81 1 1.0 1.0 70.0
8.00 1 1.0 1.0 71.0
8.13 1 1.0 1.0 72.0
8.45 1 1.0 1.0 73.0
8.48 1 1.0 1.0 74.0
8.60 1 1.0 1.0 75.0
8.75 1 1.0 1.0 76.0
8.77 1 1.0 1.0 77.0
9.56 1 1.0 1.0 78.0
9.68 1 1.0 1.0 79.0
9.85 1 1.0 1.0 80.0
10.00 3 3.0 3.0 83.0
10.63 1 1.0 1.0 84.0
11.25 1 1.0 1.0 85.0
11.71 1 1.0 1.0 86.0
11.76 1 1.0 1.0 87.0
11.90 1 1.0 1.0 88.0
12.39 1 1.0 1.0 89.0
12.50 2 2.0 2.0 91.0
13.00 1 1.0 1.0 92.0
13.08 1 1.0 1.0 93.0
13.16 1 1.0 1.0 94.0
13.70 1 1.0 1.0 95.0
17.33 1 1.0 1.0 96.0
18.18 1 1.0 1.0 97.0
19.98 1 1.0 1.0 98.0
21.63 1 1.0 1.0 99.0
22.20 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Number of Ages
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 25 5 5.0 5.0 5.0
26 1 1.0 1.0 6.0
27 2 2.0 2.0 8.0
28 4 4.0 4.0 12.0
30 1 1.0 1.0 13.0
31 4 4.0 4.0 17.0
32 2 2.0 2.0 19.0
33 2 2.0 2.0 21.0
34 2 2.0 2.0 23.0
35 5 5.0 5.0 28.0
36 6 6.0 6.0 34.0
37 1 1.0 1.0 35.0
38 4 4.0 4.0 39.0
39 2 2.0 2.0 41.0
40 3 3.0 3.0 44.0
41 2 2.0 2.0 46.0
42 4 4.0 4.0 50.0
43 5 5.0 5.0 55.0
44 4 4.0 4.0 59.0
45 1 1.0 1.0 60.0
46 4 4.0 4.0 64.0
47 4 4.0 4.0 68.0
48 4 4.0 4.0 72.0
49 3 3.0 3.0 75.0
50 2 2.0 2.0 77.0
51 3 3.0 3.0 80.0
52 2 2.0 2.0 82.0
53 3 3.0 3.0 85.0
54 2 2.0 2.0 87.0
56 1 1.0 1.0 88.0
57 1 1.0 1.0 89.0
58 1 1.0 1.0 90.0
60 3 3.0 3.0 93.0
61 2 2.0 2.0 95.0
62 1 1.0 1.0 96.0
63 1 1.0 1.0 97.0
64 3 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Family Size
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 23 23.0 23.0 23.0
2 33 33.0 33.0 56.0
3 9 9.0 9.0 65.0
4 12 12.0 12.0 77.0
5 13 13.0 13.0 90.0
6 5 5.0 5.0 95.0
7 2 2.0 2.0 97.0
8 2 2.0 2.0 99.0
13 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Years of School
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 4 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
8 4 4.0 4.0 5.0
9 2 2.0 2.0 7.0
10 4 4.0 4.0 11.0
11 4 4.0 4.0 15.0
12 45 45.0 45.0 60.0
13 7 7.0 7.0 67.0
14 10 10.0 10.0 77.0
15 3 3.0 3.0 80.0
16 15 15.0 15.0 95.0
17 2 2.0 2.0 97.0
18 3 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Years of Labor
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 4 4.0 4.0 4.0
2 6 6.0 6.0 10.0
3 12 12.0 12.0 22.0
4 2 2.0 2.0 24.0
5 2 2.0 2.0 26.0
6 1 1.0 1.0 27.0
7 7 7.0 7.0 34.0
8 2 2.0 2.0 36.0
9 5 5.0 5.0 41.0
10 2 2.0 2.0 43.0
11 5 5.0 5.0 48.0
13 5 5.0 5.0 53.0
14 4 4.0 4.0 57.0
15 5 5.0 5.0 62.0
16 3 3.0 3.0 65.0
17 2 2.0 2.0 67.0
18 2 2.0 2.0 69.0
19 2 2.0 2.0 71.0
20 3 3.0 3.0 74.0
22 4 4.0 4.0 78.0
23 1 1.0 1.0 79.0
24 1 1.0 1.0 80.0
25 1 1.0 1.0 81.0
26 2 2.0 2.0 83.0
28 1 1.0 1.0 84.0
29 1 1.0 1.0 85.0
30 1 1.0 1.0 86.0
31 2 2.0 2.0 88.0
34 1 1.0 1.0 89.0
36 3 3.0 3.0 92.0
37 1 1.0 1.0 93.0
39 1 1.0 1.0 94.0
40 3 3.0 3.0 97.0
42 1 1.0 1.0 98.0
44 1 1.0 1.0 99.0
45 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Histogram
Graph
Correlations
Correlations
Daily wage
Years of School earning in Birr
Years of School Pearson Correlation 1 .375**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 100 100
Daily wage earning in Birr Pearson Correlation .375** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 100 100
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlations
Correlations
Daily wage
earning in Birr Number of Ages
Daily wage earning in Birr Pearson Correlation 1 -.179
Sig. (2-tailed) .075
N 100 100
Number of Ages Pearson Correlation -.179 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .075
N 100 100
Correlations
Correlations
Daily wage
earning in Birr Years of School
Daily wage earning in Birr Pearson Correlation 1 .375**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 100 100
Years of School Pearson Correlation .375** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 100 100
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlations
Correlations
Daily wage
earning in Birr Family Size
Daily wage earning in Birr Pearson Correlation 1 .063
Sig. (2-tailed) .537
N 100 100
Family Size Pearson Correlation .063 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .537
N 100 100
Correlations
Daily Years of School Years of Labor Number Family Size
wage of Ages
earning
in Birr
Daily wage Pearson Correlation 1 .375** .352** -.179 .063
earning in Birr Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .075 .537
N 100 100 100 100 100
Years of School Pearson Correlation .375** 1 -.245* -.044 .099
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .014 .665 .326
N 100 100 100 100 100
Years of Labor Pearson Correlation .352** -.245* 1 -.133 .091
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .014 .188 .366
N 100 100 100 100 100
Number of Ages Pearson Correlation -.179 -.044 -.133 1 .003
Sig. (2-tailed) .075 .665 .188 .975
N 100 100 100 100 100
Family Size Pearson Correlation .063 .099 .091 .003 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .537 .326 .366 .975
N 100 100 100 100 100
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Partial Correlations
Correlations
Control Variables Years of School Family Size
Daily wage earning in Birr Years of School Correlation 1.000 .082
Significance (2-tailed) . .420
df 0 97
Family Size Correlation .082 1.000
Significance (2-tailed) .420 .
df 97 0
T-Test
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Daily wage earning in Birr 100 6.8481 4.32911 .43291
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
95% Confidence Interval of
Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Uppe
Daily wage earning in Birr 15.819 99 .000 6.84810 5.9891
One-Sample Effect Sizes
95% Confidence Interval
Standardizera Point Estimate Lower Upper
Daily wage earning in Birr Cohen's d 4.32911 1.582 1.285 1.875
Hedges' correction 4.36226 1.570 1.276 1.860
a. The denominator used in estimating the effect sizes.
Cohen's d uses the sample standard deviation.
Hedges' correction uses the sample standard deviation, plus a correction factor.
Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method
1 Family Size, . Enter
Number of Ages,
Years of School,
Years of Laborb
a. Dependent Variable: Daily wage earning in Birr
b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .599a .359 .332 3.53758
a. Predictors: (Constant), Family Size, Number of Ages, Years of School, Years
of Labor
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 666.501 4 166.625 13.315 .000b
Residual 1188.877 95 12.514
Total 1855.379 99
a. Dependent Variable: Daily wage earning in Birr
b. Predictors: (Constant), Family Size, Number of Ages, Years of School, Years of Labor
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) -5.043 2.735 -1.844 .068
Years of School .876 .154 .486 5.670 .000
Years of Labor .168 .031 .460 5.332 .000
Number of Ages -.040 .034 -.096 -1.158 .250
Family Size -.058 .176 -.027 -.330 .742
a. Dependent Variable: Daily wage earning in Birr
2.
1) First five cities with the maximum crime rate
From highest to lower:
1. city51 – 2,922
2. city9 – 1,206
3. city5 – 1,078
4. city34 – 1,074
5. city18 – 1,062
(Also shown to you as a table: “Top 5 Cities by Crime Rate”.)
2) Crime rate summary
Mean: 612.843 per 100,000
Minimum: 82
Maximum: 2,922
(See “Crime Rate Summary (Mean/Min/Max)”.)
3) Create and analyze the categorical crime level (“crimelevel”)
Rules used:
low: crime < 550
medium: 550 ≤ crime ≤ 900
high: crime > 900
a) Frequency table (counts)
low: 26 cities
medium: 16 cities
high: 9 cities
(Shown in “Frequency: Crime Level”.)
b–g) Means by crime level (tables shown to you)
Murder rate (per 1,000,000)
low: 4.79 | medium: 9.01 | high: 19.61
Finding: rises sharply with crime level.
% Slum areas
low: 57.58 | medium: 73.80 | high: 84.33
Finding: strong increase as crime level rises.
% Employed (constructed as 100 − unemployed since file had “unemployed”)
low: 10.46 | medium: 17.64 | high: 28.43
Finding: higher crime buckets have higher “employed” shares in this dataset
(counter-intuitive; see regression notes below).
% Educated (HS+)
low: 77.74 | medium: 75.08 | high: 73.87
Finding: slightly lower education as crime level rises.
% Below poverty line
low: 12.80 | medium: 14.36 | high: 18.29
Finding: poverty increases with crime level.
% Single parents
low: 10.31 | medium: 11.69 | high: 13.60
Finding: single-parent share increases with crime level.
4) Scatter plots of crime vs each independent variable
correlations with crime:
Positive: murder_rate (r ≈ 0.818), slum_areas (0.774), employed (0.313), poverty
(0.239), single (0.640)
Negative: educated (−0.348)
Interpretation highlights:
Strong positive relationships: murder rate, slum areas, single parents.
Education shows a modest negative association with crime.
“Employed” is positively correlated with crime in this dataset—likely because we
derived it from “unemployed” and because other city characteristics are in play;
regression helps disentangle this.
(You can view exact correlation coefficients in “Correlation with Crime Rate”.)
5) Correlation matrix (crime against predictors)
Displayed in the table “Correlation with Crime Rate.” See the summary above for signs and
approximate magnitudes.
6) OLS regression: crime on six predictors
Model:
crime = β₀ + β₁·murder_rate + β₂·slum_areas + β₃·employed + β₄·educated + β₅·poverty +
β₆·single + ε
Fit quality:
R² = 0.895, Adjusted R² = 0.8807
Coefficient estimates (rounded):
const: −1213.6237
murder_rate: +19.3315 (p ≈ 0.0001) ✅
slum_areas: +6.6218 (p ≈ 0.0036) ✅
employed: +0.6983 (p ≈ 0.7817)
educated: +4.7913 (p ≈ 0.4769)
poverty: +15.0068 (p ≈ 0.1299)
single: +54.8519 (p ≈ 0.0135) ✅
Diagnostics (CLRM assumptions):
Homoscedasticity (Breusch–Pagan): LM p = 0.229; F p = 0.240 → fail to reject
heteroskedasticity → homoscedasticity is plausible.
Multicollinearity (VIF): See “Variance Inflation Factors (VIF)” table—use this to check
which predictors are strongly collinear (rule of thumb: >10 is concerning).
Model specification (Ramsey RESET): power 2: p = 0.135; power 3: p = 0.288 → no
strong evidence of mis-specification.
Normality of residuals (Jarque–Bera): JB p = 0.636 → residuals consistent with
normality.
7) Interpreting statistically significant coefficients
We judge significance by p < 0.05 in the “OLS Coefficients Table”.
Murder rate (significant, +19.33): Holding other variables fixed, a 1-unit increase in
murders per 1,000,000 is associated with about +19.33 more violent crimes per 100,000.
Strong and significant positive effect.
Slum areas (significant, +6.62): Each additional percentage point of population living in
slum areas is associated with +6.62 violent crimes per 100,000, ceteris paribus.
Single parents (significant, +54.85): Each additional percentage point of single-parent
households is associated with +54.85 violent crimes per 100,000, controlling for other
factors.
Not statistically significant at 5%: employed, educated, poverty. Their signs suggest
directions, but we cannot rule out zero effect after controlling for the other covariates.