3-5 paragraphs

  

Instruction.. 3-5 paragraphsApplication to Professional Practice Provides a detailed discussion on the applicability of the findings with respect to the professional practice of business. This major sub-section provides a rich academic argument why and how the findings are relevant to improved business practice.See attached for the analysis of the data
data_analysis.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Descriptive Statistics
A descriptive analysis of the data showed that there were 247 visitors who were
surveyed, with more female tourists (59.1%) compared to 40.9% male tourists. The largest share
(92.3%) of the visitors came into the BVI for vacation, with 4% of the tourists visiting for
business purposes. A paltry 0.4% visited in search of work. Tortola Island received the majority
of the visitors (59.5%) while Anegada had the least number of visitors (4.0%). Virgin Gorda had
the second largest number of tourists (19.0%) while Jos Van Dyke received 7.7% of the total
tourists surveyed. The remaining 9.7% of the visitors toured other parts of BVI. Arrival at the
ports of entry was mainly via ferry (68.8) while arrival via air was the second largest means
(23.9%). A small percentage (6.5%) of the tourists arrived via private charter. Private air and
cruise ship arrivals each constituted 0.4% of all arrival means. Americans (68.4%) and
Canadians (11.3%) were the majority tourists, with British visitors being a small 2.0% only.
Return visitors formed a 62.3% of the total tourists surveyed, with the rest 37.7% being first time
visitors. About quarter of the visitors (26.7%) had annual incomes of $200,000 and above. Only
a paltry 4.0% had an income less than $20,000.
Almost half of the tourists (49.4%) were very satisfied with the destination image while
those who were extremely satisfied with the destination image were equally many (40.9%). A
small percentage of 1.2% was slightly satisfied with the destination image while 8.5% of the
tourists were not sure about their satisfaction with destination image.
A considerably high percentage (61.5%) of the tourists were extremely satisfied while
36.8% of the tourists were very satisfied. Only a very small percentage (0.4%) of the visitors
were slightly satisfied. Those who were unsure about their satisfied also formed a small
percentage of 1.2%.
Gender
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Male
101
40.9
40.9
40.9
Female
146
59.1
59.1
100.0
Total
247
100.0
100.0
Purpose
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Vacation
228
92.3
92.3
92.3
Business
10
4.0
4.0
96.4
Seeking Work
1
.4
.4
96.8
Other
8
3.2
3.2
100.0
Total
247
100.0
100.0
Island
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Tortola
147
59.5
59.5
59.5
Virgin Gorda
47
19.0
19.0
78.5
Anegada
10
4.0
4.0
82.6
Jost Van Dkye
19
7.7
7.7
90.3
Other
24
9.7
9.7
100.0
Total
247
100.0
100.0
Valid
Arrive
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Air
Valid
59
23.9
23.9
23.9
Private Air
1
.4
.4
24.3
Cruise Ship
1
.4
.4
24.7
Ferry
170
68.8
68.8
93.5
16
6.5
6.5
100.0
247
100.0
100.0
Private Charter
Total
Nationality
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
America
26
10.5
10.5
10.5
American
169
68.4
68.4
78.9
Antiguan
1
.4
.4
79.4
Argentinian
2
.8
.8
80.2
British
5
2.0
2.0
82.2
Canada
2
.8
.8
83.0
28
11.3
11.3
94.3
Chinese
1
.4
.4
94.7
Dominican
1
.4
.4
95.1
German
1
.4
.4
95.5
Irish
1
.4
.4
96.0
Italy
1
.4
.4
96.4
Kittitian
1
.4
.4
96.8
New Zealand
2
.8
.8
97.6
Nicaragua
1
.4
.4
98.0
Swedish
4
1.6
1.6
99.6
UK
1
.4
.4
100.0
247
100.0
100.0
Canadian
Valid
Total
Visted_Before
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Yes
154
62.3
62.3
62.3
No
93
37.7
37.7
100.0
247
100.0
100.0
Total
Income
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Less than $20,000
10
4.0
4.0
4.0
$20,000-$39.999
10
4.0
4.0
8.1
$40,000-$59,000
34
13.8
13.8
21.9
$60,000-$79,999
27
10.9
10.9
32.8
$80,000-$99.999
40
16.2
16.2
49.0
$100,000-$149,999
32
13.0
13.0
61.9
$150,000-$199,999
28
11.3
11.3
73.3
Above $200,000
66
26.7
26.7
100.0
247
100.0
100.0
Total
Destination Image
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Slightly Satisfied
3
1.2
1.2
1.2
21
8.5
8.5
9.7
Very Satisfied
122
49.4
49.4
59.1
Extremely Satisfied
101
40.9
40.9
100.0
Total
247
100.0
100.0
Unsure
Valid
Descriptives
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Push1
247
1.00
5.00
4.0081
.81646
Push2
247
2.00
5.00
4.2753
.63528
Push3
247
1.00
5.00
4.1903
.71014
Push4
247
1.00
5.00
4.2713
.71802
Push5
247
Valid N (listwise)
247
1.00
5.00
3.8623
.92244
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Push6
247
1.00
5.00
3.9514
.85401
Push7
247
1.00
5.00
3.8057
1.04895
Push8
247
1.00
5.00
3.7206
1.07015
Push9
247
1.00
5.00
3.7976
1.02782
Valid N (listwise)
247
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Push10
247
1.00
5.00
4.1093
.86497
Push11
247
1.00
5.00
4.2794
.74278
Push12
247
1.00
5.00
4.1053
.91346
Push13
247
1.00
5.00
4.0405
.92744
Valid N (listwise)
247
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Push14
247
1.00
5.00
4.0891
.95857
Push15
247
1.00
5.00
4.2186
.88390
Push16
247
1.00
5.00
4.1012
.94669
Push17
247
2.00
5.00
4.3887
.68280
Valid N (listwise)
247
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Push18
247
1.00
5.00
4.1215
.88886
Push19
247
1.00
5.00
3.6356
1.11020
Push20
247
1.00
5.00
3.6802
1.16125
Push21
247
1.00
5.00
3.7166
1.18281
Valid N (listwise)
247
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Push22
247
1.00
5.00
3.6356
1.24484
Push23
247
1.00
5.00
3.8016
1.10667
Push24
247
1.00
5.00
3.4737
1.18180
Push25
247
1.00
5.00
3.7449
1.11335
Valid N (listwise)
247
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Pull1
247
1.00
5.00
3.8340
.98401
Pull2
247
1.00
5.00

3.4858
.99122
Valid N (listwise)
247
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Pull3
247
1.00
5.00
3.8583
.92841
Pull4
247
1.00
5.00
3.7854
1.02732
Pull5
247
1.00
5.00
3.7814
1.00849
Valid N (listwise)
247
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Pull6
247
1.00
5.00
3.9190
.99262
Pull7
247
1.00
5.00
3.6559
.98721
Valid N (listwise)
247
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Pull8
247
1.00
5.00
3.8219
.96306
Pull9
247
2.00
5.00
4.3482
.82160
Valid N (listwise)
247
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Pull10
247
Valid N (listwise)
247
1.00
Maximum
5.00
Mean
4.2186
Std. Deviation
.82687
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Pull11
247
Valid N (listwise)
247
2.00
Maximum
5.00
Mean
4.4251
Std. Deviation
.72236
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Pull12
247
Valid N (listwise)
247
2.00
Maximum
5.00
Mean
4.5870
Std. Deviation
.67438
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Pull12
247
Valid N (listwise)
247
2.00
Maximum
5.00
Mean
4.5870
Std. Deviation
.67438
Tourist Satisfaction
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Slightly Satisfied
1
.4
.4
.4
Unsure
3
1.2
1.2
1.6
91
36.8
36.8
38.5
Extremely Satisfied
152
61.5
61.5
100.0
Total
247
100.0
100.0
Very Satisfied
Reliability Test
Chronbach’s Alpha
A Cronbach’s alpha test indicated that the push motives subscale consisted of 25 items
(α= .927) while the pull motives subscale had 12 items (α = .869). Therefore, the questionnaire
was found to be highly reliable.
Push motives
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s
N of Items
Alpha
.927
25
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Scale Variance
Corrected Item-
Cronbach’s
Item Deleted
if Item Deleted
Total Correlation
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Push1
95.0162
198.943
.501
.925
Push2
94.7490
201.026
.539
.925
Push3
94.8340
200.456
.507
.925
Push4
94.7530
197.699
.640
.924
Push5
95.1619
196.461
.535
.925
Push6
95.0729
198.783
.483
.925
Push7
95.2186
190.318
.682
.922
Push8
95.3036
190.359
.665
.923
Push9
95.2267
192.891
.602
.924
Push10
94.9150
196.623
.568
.924
Push11
94.7449
198.646
.571
.924
Push12
94.9190
193.766
.651
.923
Push13
94.9838
196.170
.543
.925
Push14
94.9352
200.272
.367
.927
Push15
94.8057
198.092
.493
.925
Push16
94.9231
197.364
.484
.926
Push17
94.6356
201.216
.489
.926
Push18
94.9028
194.714
.631
.923
Push19
95.3887
190.076
.648
.923
Push20
95.3441
189.568
.633
.923
Push21
95.3077
190.157
.601
.924
Push22
95.3887
192.491
.495
.926
Push23
95.2227
192.092
.581
.924
Push24
95.5506
190.940
.576
.924
Push25
95.2794
190.438
.634
.923
Pull motives
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s
N of Items
Alpha
.869
12
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Scale Variance
Corrected Item-
Cronbach’s
Item Deleted
if Item Deleted
Total Correlation
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Pull1
43.8866
41.711
.544
.859
Pull2
44.2348
42.278
.491
.863
Pull3
43.8623
40.615
.686
.850
Pull4
43.9352
39.671
.685
.849
Pull5
43.9393
39.919
.679
.849
Pull6
43.8016
41.550
.551
.858
Pull7
44.0648
41.654
.546
.859
Pull8
43.8988
41.498
.578
.857
Pull9
43.3725
43.381
.512
.861
Pull10
43.5020
43.023
.543
.859
Pull11
43.2955
45.469
.370
.868
Pull12
43.1336
45.263
.427
.865
Assumptions Tests
A sample size of 247 was sufficient to realize a power of above 0.99. The Shapiro-Wilk
test of normality indicated that the data significantly deviated from normal distribution;
Destination image and tourism satisfaction, p <.001 each while push motives and pull motives Shapiro-Wilk test was significant, p= 0.003 and 0.002 respectively. The histogram showed a distribution of data that was not normal as some data was skewed on the far left while some data points were exceptionally higher in frequency than the rest. The scatter plot of residual versus predicted values also showed lack of linearity in the data as there were outliers and most data points were on the negative side of the regression line. The Normal P-P plot also indicated that the data was not linear as the data points were straying from the diagonal line in a non-linear manner. Autocorrelation was ruled out as the Durbin-Watson value was 1.864, which is clearly above 1.4 and within the acceptable range of 1.5-2.5. Multicollinearity in the data was ruled out because the VIF values of the independent variables were between 1 and 10, i.e. 1.113 while the tolerance values were above 0.2, i.e. 0.899. Moreover, both condition indices were below a value of 30 (14.09 and 18.225 for destination image and push and pull motives respectively), meaning the data was less likely collinear. Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnova Statistic Destination Image .263 df Shapiro-Wilk Sig. 247 .000 Statistic .774 df Sig. 247 .000 Tourist Satisfaction .389 247 .000 .653 247 .000 Push motives .061 247 .025 .982 247 .003 Pull motives .075 247 .002 .980 247 .002 a. Lilliefors Significance Correction Collinearity Diagnosticsa Variance Proportions Push and Pull Model Dimension Eigenvalue 1 1 2.976 1.000 .00 .00 .00 2 .015 14.098 .04 .90 .36 3 .009 18.225 .95 .10 .63 a. Dependent Variable: NewTouristSat Condition Index (Constant) NewDestImage motives Inferential Statistics Following the violation of the linearity and normality assumptions, bootstrapping employed for 247 samples at 95% confidence interval to see whether there were possible influences of the violation of assumption. Following the violation of the linearity and normality assumptions, bootstrapping procedures were employed to see whether there were possible influences of the violation of assumption. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine whether there was a relationship between destination image, push and pull motives to travel, and BVI tourists' satisfaction. The hypotheses were: H10: There is no statistically significant relationship between destination image, push and pull motives to travel, and BVI tourists’ satisfaction. H1a: There is a statistically significant relationship between destination image, push and pull motives to travel, and BVI tourists’ satisfaction. The results of the regression indicated that the two predictors, destination image and push and pull motives to travel, explained 16.6% of the variance in tourist satisfaction (R2= .166, F(2,244)= 24.233, p<.001). It was evident that destination image significantly predicted tourist satisfaction (β=.168, p=.001), as did push and pull motives (β = .190, p<.001). The bootstraps for push and pull motives and new destination image were still significant (p=.004), meaning that the two independent variables were statistically significant predictors of tourist satisfaction. The null hypothesis was rejected as there was a statistically significant relationship between destination image, push, and pull motives to travel and BVI tourists' satisfaction. Model Summaryb Change Statistics Std. Error Model 1 R .407a R Adjusted R of the R Square F Square Square Estimate Change Change .166 .159 .49449 .166 df1 24.233 df2 2 a. Predictors: (Constant), NewDestImage, Push and Pull motives b. Dependent Variable: NewTouristSat Bootstrap for Model Summary Bootstrapa 95% Confidence Interval Model 1 Durbin-Watson 1.864 Bias -.666 Std. Error .125 Lower .960 Upper 1.414 a. Unless otherwise noted, bootstrap results are based on 247 bootstrap samples 244 Sig. F Durbin- Change Watson .000 1.864 ANOVAa Model 1 Sum of Squares df Mean Square Regression 11.851 2 5.925 Residual 59.663 244 .245 Total 71.514 246 F Sig. .000b 24.233 a. Dependent Variable: NewTouristSat b. Predictors: (Constant), NewDestImage, Push and Pull motives Coefficientsa Model 1 Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity Coefficients Coefficients Statistics B (Constant) Push and Pull motives NewDestImage Std. Error Beta 2.746 .268 .190 .041 .168 .049 t Sig. Tolerance VIF 10.263 .000 .289 4.678 .000 .899 1.113 .210 3.399 .001 .899 1.113 a. Dependent Variable: NewTouristSat Bootstrap for Coefficients Bootstrapa 95% Confidence Interval Model 1 B (Constant) Bias Std. Error Sig. (2-tailed) Lower Upper 2.746 -.014 .297 .004 2.100 3.254 Push and Pull motives .190 .002 .049 .004 .097 .289 NewDestImage .168 -.001 .053 .004 .049 .269 a. Unless otherwise noted, bootstrap results are based on 247 bootstrap samples ... Purchase answer to see full attachment