This document is an example written by me in order to respect client confidentiality

One hundred clients were enquired with a questionnaire composed by demographic elements and Likert-type questions (ranging from 0 to 10) composing a Satisfaction questionnaire. Satisfaction oriented questions were composed in a single factor, X19 (dependent variable), resultant of the mean of all referred questions. Inferential statistics were conducted with 5% significance level. The first goal was to compare clients satisfaction with a reference value. We used the value 5 (center of the Lickert scale) as a cut point and compared clients means (all satisfaction questions) with this value. Clients satisfaction mean was M= 6.92 (sd=1.19). We conducted one-sample t-test analysis in order to evaluate the existence of statistical significant differences. T-test value was t(99)= 16.09, p<.001 proving the existence of statistical significant differences; 95% confidence interval (1.68, 2.15) reaffirmed this result because zero isnt within its range. Therefore we can conclude that clients satisfaction mean is higher than the scale center point. Next we analyzed X19 distribution comparing it with the normal distribution. In order to do so we applied Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Most extreme differences indicate small differences between the observed cumulative distribution and the theoretical cumulative distribution. K-S statistic value was .781, p>.05, meaning that X19 distribution doesnt differ significantly from the normal distribution standards, confirming the previous result. We concluded that X19 variable was able to parametric statistics. We decided to compare clients satisfaction on the two companys industries (magazine and newsprint). Magazine industry (n=52), scored M=7.09 (sd= 1.19) and Newsprint industry scored M=6.73 (sd=1.18). Independents sample T-Test scored t(99)= 1.55, p>.05. Therefore we cannot conclude that satisfaction is different on Magazine or Newsprint industries; 95% confidence interval (-.10, .94) reaffirmed this result because zero is within its range. Levenes test for equality of variances scored F=.002, p>.05, so we assumed that both variances were not significantly different.

We also compared two different satisfaction measures, X19 and a composite measure resultant from the mean of Likely to recommend oriented questions that we named X20. In order to do so we applied Paired Samples T-Test because these measures were part of the same questionnaire and the goal was to compare all clients answers, creating one sample and two conditions. Mean difference between X19 and X20 was -.10 indicating that X20 had higher mean value. Paired sample T-Test scored t(99)= -1.31, p>.05. Therefore we cannot conclude that X19 and X20 are significantly different; 95% confidence interval (-.26, .0.05) reaffirmed this result because zero is within its range. Next we used Customer Type variable (X1) to compare X19. Because X1 divides the sample in three independent groups (more than two) we used One-Factor ANOVA. Levenes Test for Homogeneity of variances scored 3.40, p<.05 violating this assumption. Therefore we could have used Kruskall-Wallis. Despite that we concluded the analysis. ANOVA Test scored F(2,97)= 46.65, p<.001 indicating that at least one comparison pair was significantly different. Multiple comparison Tukey HSD Test showed that