| Course | BUSI 453 Applied Marketing Analysis (BUSI453) |
|---|---|
| Module/Week | 6 |
| Assignment | QMR Report: Draft 3 |
| Paper type | Marketing research report draft (fieldwork and analysis) |
| Length | about 929 words, 3 double-spaced pages plus title page and references. Course guide: the third staged draft of the Quantitative Marketing Research Report, covering fieldwork, data preparation and analysis in current APA format, with the word count and citations the assignment sets |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| Points | 100 |
| School | Liberty University Online |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Where it sits | Module/Week 6 in Liberty's published BUSI 453 course guide; current sections can differ |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUSI 453 Week 6
Fieldwork, Data Preparation and Hypothesis Tests: Member Interest in On-Demand Classes
[Student Name]
School of Business, Liberty University
BUSI 453: Applied Marketing Analysis
Quantitative Marketing Research Report: Draft 3
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Riverside Cycle and Strength, the survey data and the draft's word and citation targets are composites standing in for the course's own; every statistic is computed from the stated figures, the textbook and research cited are real, and the structure follows Liberty's public course guide for BUSI 453.
Fieldwork, Data Preparation and Hypothesis Tests: Member Interest in On-Demand Classes
Fieldwork
The questionnaire developed in Draft 2 was sent to all 640 active members through the studio's app and by email on March 3, with one reminder on March 10, and closed on March 17. Completing it earned a $10 smoothie credit. Because the whole membership was invited, the study is a census attempt of the population rather than a sample drawn from it, and its main risk is nonresponse rather than sampling error (Malhotra, 2015). In all, 251 members responded, a response rate of 39.2 percent. Responses came in two waves: about two-thirds arrived in the first three days and most of the rest within two days of the reminder, a common pattern that later allowed early and late respondents to be compared. No technical problems were reported, and the app's records showed that the invitation had been opened by 71 percent of members, so most nonrespondents saw the request and chose not to answer.
Data Preparation
Malhotra (2015) describes data preparation as checking questionnaires, editing, coding, cleaning and treating missing responses before analysis. Before screening, each response was coded: agreement items on a 1-to-5 scale with 5 as the strongest agreement, yes-or-no items as 1 and 0, and the open price question as a dollar figure, with entries such as "maybe $12" recoded to the number given. The app required an answer to the price question before submission, so no price responses were missing among complete surveys. Three screening rules were applied:
- Incomplete responses missing any hypothesis variable were removed (11 cases).
- Responses completed in under 90 seconds, less than a third of the median time of 4 minutes 50 seconds, were flagged as speeding.
- Responses giving the same answer to all seven Likert items, including the item placed after the price question, were flagged as straight-lining.
Careless responding is common enough in online surveys to distort results, and screening on response time and invariant answer patterns is a recommended defense (Meade & Craig, 2012). Three cases met both the speeding and straight-lining flags and were removed; four cases flagged on only one rule were kept after inspection showed varied answers elsewhere. That left 237 usable responses, 37.0 percent of members.
Sample Description and Reliability
Of the 237 respondents, 129 (54.4 percent) had used an online workout video in the past six months, and 71 (30.0 percent) traveled for work monthly or worked irregular shifts. Their average membership length, 26 months, was close to the studio-wide average of 24 months. Strength classes were ranked first by the largest share of respondents (38 percent), followed by cycling (27 percent), yoga and mobility (19 percent), interval training (11 percent) and core (5 percent), which gives the owner a clear filming order if the library goes ahead.
Both scales were internally consistent. The four perceived usefulness items had a Cronbach's alpha of .88 and the three intention items an alpha of .91, above the .70 threshold (Malhotra, 2015). Very high alphas can signal redundant items (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011), but these values fall in the acceptable range. Item scores were averaged into scales: perceived usefulness had a mean of 3.62 (SD = 0.91) and intention a mean of 2.94 (SD = 1.08) on five-point scales.
To check for nonresponse bias, the 172 members who responded before the reminder were compared with the 65 who responded after it, following the logic that late respondents resemble nonrespondents (Armstrong & Overton, 1977). Their mean intention scores, 2.97 and 2.86, did not differ significantly.
Hypothesis Tests
| Hypothesis | Test | Result | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1: Usefulness relates positively to intention | Pearson correlation | r(235) = .61, p < .001 | Supported |
| H2: Video users report higher intention | Independent-samples t-test | t(235) = 4.34, p < .001, d = 0.57 | Supported |
| H3: Schedule-constrained members report higher intention | Independent-samples t-test | t(235) = 4.25, p < .001, d = 0.60 | Supported |
For H1, members who saw on-demand classes as more useful reported stronger intention to subscribe, a strong positive correlation. For H2, members who had used workout videos scored higher on intention (M = 3.21, SD = 1.02, n = 129) than those who had not (M = 2.62, SD = 1.07, n = 108). For H3, members who traveled or worked irregular shifts scored higher (M = 3.38, SD = 1.01, n = 71) than other members (M = 2.75, SD = 1.06, n = 166). Both differences count as medium effects under the conventions Cohen (1992) set out. Put in practical terms, the average schedule-constrained member sits about 0.6 points higher on a five-point intention scale than the average unconstrained member, enough to move from "neither likely nor unlikely" toward "somewhat likely." These tests examine each factor separately; because video users and constrained members may overlap, the final report will test them together.
Willingness to Pay by Schedule
In all, 88 respondents (37.1 percent) said they would pay at least $15 a month. A cross-tabulation shows that the share was much higher among schedule-constrained members:
| Group | Would pay $15 or more | Would not | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schedule constrained | 38 (53.5 percent) | 33 | 71 |
| Not constrained | 50 (30.1 percent) | 116 | 166 |
| Total | 88 | 149 | 237 |
A chi-square test of independence showed the relationship to be significant, chi-square(1, N = 237) = 11.67, p < .001. The members whose schedules keep them out of the studio are the ones most willing to pay to take the studio with them. For the owner, this means the most promising buyers can be found in the studio's own booking records, among members whose attendance drops during travel months, without any further research.
Limits of These Results
These are stated intentions and stated prices, which typically overstate actual purchase (Malhotra, 2015). Only 49 respondents, 20.7 percent, both scored 4 or higher on intention and would pay at least $15. The results also come from one studio's members in one month, before any library exists for them to try, and members answering a survey from their own studio may be more positive than they would be with their wallets. The final report will convert these figures into a conservative subscriber forecast and test, with multiple regression, whether usefulness, video use and schedule each predict intention when the others are held constant.
References
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377701400320
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Malhotra, N. K. (2015). Essentials of marketing research: A hands-on orientation. Pearson.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
What the BUSI 453 Week 6 instructions ask
In Module/Week 6, BUSI 453 assigns chapters 11 and 12 of Malhotra, on fieldwork and data preparation and on data analysis through frequency distributions, cross-tabulation and hypothesis testing, with one presentation and QMR Report: Draft 3, worth 100 points. The draft carries the six-step process into its fourth and fifth steps, data collection and data preparation and analysis, for the study designed in Drafts 1 and 2, following APA style and whatever word and citation targets the assignment sheet sets. Results should be reported with the test used, the statistic and its significance, and what each result means for the hypotheses and the decision.
How this BUSI 453 Week 6 example is built
The draft opens with fieldwork: how and when the survey went out, the response rate and the incentive. Data preparation follows, explaining the screening rules for incomplete, speeding and straight-lined responses and how many cases each removed. A descriptive section reports the sample's makeup and the scale means, with Cronbach's alpha for both scales, and an early-versus-late comparison for nonresponse bias. The hypothesis section states each hypothesis, the test, the result and the decision, with a table. A cross-tabulation of willingness to pay by schedule constraint, with a chi-square test, adds a finding the final report will use. A short section lists what the results do not show.
BUSI 453 Week 6 grading rubric: where the points go
Draft 3 is graded on the description of fieldwork, the soundness of data preparation, the choice and correct reporting of statistical tests, accurate interpretation of results in relation to the hypotheses, how course ideas and sources are woven in, and whether statistics, tables and references follow APA style. Instructors check that the tests fit the variables' levels of measurement, that results include the statistic, degrees of freedom and significance, and that conclusions do not go beyond what the data show, for example by treating stated intention as actual purchase. Clear tables and a plain-language statement of each result score well, because the owner of the business, not only the instructor, should be able to follow the findings. Reporting the cases removed at each screening step lets a reader trace the sample from invitations to final responses.
BUSI 453 Week 6 help: mistakes that cost points
Report the response rate and every screening rule with the number of cases it removed, so the final sample can be traced. Run reliability before combining items into scales. Match each hypothesis to a test that fits its variables: correlation for two interval measures, t-tests for an interval measure across two groups, chi-square for two nominal ones. Report each test in APA style, with the statistic, degrees of freedom and p value, then say in one sentence what it means. Add an effect size where you can. Note the study's limits honestly. Keep the output tables from the software, since the final report will draw on them.
Related BUSI 453 sample papers
Other BUSI 453 weeks
- BUSI 453 Week 1: Forum 1: Research Problems
- BUSI 453 Week 2: QMR Draft 1: Problem and Approach
- BUSI 453 Week 3: Forum 2: Interviews vs. Experiments
- BUSI 453 Week 4: QMR Draft 2: The Questionnaire
- BUSI 453 Week 5: Forum 3: Sampling and Nonresponse
- BUSI 453 Week 7: Forum 4: Research Ethics
- BUSI 453 Week 8: QMR Final Report: On-Demand Classes
More BS in Business Administration sample papers
- BUSI 444 Week 6: Training Project: Feedback Skills
- BUSI 446 Week 6: Project Report 3: Pricing
- BUSI 455 Week 6: Negotiation 2 Planning: Lease
- BUSI 464 Week 6: Essay 2: Poland in the EU
BUSI 453 Week 6 questions, answered
What is BUSI 453 QMR Report Draft 3?
The last draft before the final report, worth 100 points in the sixth week and reporting fieldwork, data preparation and the analysis that tests the hypotheses.
Where can I find a free BUSI 453 Week 6 sample paper?
This page holds a full BUSI 453 Week 6 QMR Draft 3 with response screening, reliability, t-tests, a correlation and a chi-square cross-tabulation.
Which statistical test should I use for my QMR hypotheses?
It depends on the variables: a correlation for two interval measures, an independent-samples t-test for an interval measure across two groups, and a chi-square test for two nominal variables.
What is Cronbach's alpha?
A measure of how consistently the items of a multi-item scale move together, a form of internal consistency reliability; values of 0.70 or higher are usually taken as acceptable.
What else is due in BUSI 453 Module/Week 6?
Nothing else carries points that week; students read chapters 11 and 12 of Malhotra, watch one presentation and focus their time on fieldwork and analysis for Draft 3.
Use it as a model, or ask for your own
This paper is an original model written by our desk for study. It is not a submitted student paper and not an official Liberty University document. Read it for structure and reasoning, then write your own to the instructions in your Canvas course. If you want a version built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Ask for a custom BUSI 453 Week 6 sample · All BUSI 453 weeks · All courses