Assignment Sample on Data Collection
Introduction
The electric vehicle (EV) need in India is increasing rapidly. A current survey found that 71% of EV users are pleased with their automobiles, and the most meaningful factors that charm people’s determination to buy an EV, in the end, are environmental agreeableness, the fortune of the motorcar industry, and economizing. The most usual backgrounds notified by EV users are praising, but some respondents also noted that the breadth of EVs is still finite and that the availability of collaring facts is not consistently ideal.
Data Analysis
The researcher used the “primary (quantitative)” approach to conduct this research, which resulted in the use of tables, charts, and graphs. Regression and correlation analysis are also utilised for data analysis. In the case of regression and correlation analysis, there are underlying assumptions that must be addressed before regression and correlation can be performed. Excel will be used to examine the data collected via questionnaire.
Finding and Analysis
Question 2: Do you Own Electrical Vehicle (EV)?
Several characteristics could donate to this increased level of privilege. One aspect is the increasing availability of EVs in India. In recent years, there has been a growing numeral of EV models obtainable in India, and the expenditures of EVs have lived coming down (Parajulyet al. 2020). This has constructed EVs additionally inexpensive and affordable to wider coverage of individuals.
Figure 01: Response Analysis of Question 2
(Self-Collected)
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | .0 | 31 | 88.6 | 88.6 | 88.6 |
| 1.0 | 4 | 11.4 | 11.4 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 35 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Table 1: Results of question 2
(Source: Developed by SPSS)
Valid replies: 35
Participants who possess an EV: 31
Allocation of participants who hold an EV: (31 / 35) * 100% ≈ 88.6%
Participants who do not own an EV: 4
Share of parties who do not possess an EV: (4 / 35) * 100% ≈ 11.4%
The incremental percentage describes the running aggregate of the correct percentages (Noviana and Oktaviani 2022). In this point, the incremental percentage of 88.6% indicates that 88.6% of the participants hold an EV, and the staying 11.4% do not.
Question 3: Which companies EV you are using?
The response metric shows that 87% of the respondents are utilizing a Tata EV, while 4% are using an EV from another association, 3% are using an MG Motor EV, 1% are using a Hyundai EV, and 5% are using a Hero Electric EV. This proposes that Tata is the predominant player in the Indian EV demand.
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | .0 | 5 | 14.3 | 16.7 | 16.7 |
| 1.0 | 18 | 51.4 | 60.0 | 76.7 | |
| 3.0 | 4 | 11.4 | 13.3 | 90.0 | |
| 4.0 | 2 | 5.7 | 6.7 | 96.7 | |
| 5.0 | 1 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 30 | 85.7 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 5 | 14.3 | ||
| Total | 35 | 100.0 | |||
Table 2: Results of question 3
(Source: Developed by SPSS)
Valid answers: 30
Participants utilising EVs from Company 0: 5
Share of participants operating EVs from Company 0: (5 / 30) * 100% ≈ 16.7%
Participants utilising EVs from Company 1: 18
Share of participants operating EVs from Company 1: (18 / 30) * 100% ≈ 60.0%
Participants utilising EVs from Company 3: 4
Percentage of parties utilising EVs from Company 3: (4 / 30) * 100% ≈ 13.3%
Participants utilising EVs from Company 4: 2
Percentage of parties operating EVs from Company 4: (2 / 30) * 100% ≈ 6.7%
Participants utilising EVs from Company 5: 1
Allocation of parties operating EVs from Company 5: (1 / 30) * 100% ≈ 3.3%
The incremental percentage means the running aggregate of the valid portions (Noviana and Oktaviani 2022). In this case, the incremental rate of 16.7% means that 16.7% of participants are utilising EVs from Company 0, and so on.
Question 3. A
Overall, the data from Question 3a nourishes some invaluable understandings of the Indian EV demand. It advances that there is a directive for EVs from other characters in India and that these leagues are well-positioned to assemble this ultimatum.
Question 4: What type of EV you are using?
The rejoinder metric shows that 34.4% of the respondents are utilizing a 2-wheeler EV, 62.5% are operating a 4-wheeler EV and 3.1% are employing an “other” type of EV. The fact that 4-wheeler EVs are still moderately widespread is also mesmerizing. This suggests that there is a growing ultimatum for 4-wheeler EVs in India.
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | .0 | 20 | 57.1 | 62.5 | 62.5 |
| 1.0 | 11 | 31.4 | 34.4 | 96.9 | |
| 3.0 | 1 | 2.9 | 3.1 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 32 | 91.4 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 3 | 8.6 | ||
| Total | 35 | 100.0 | |||
Table 3: Results of question 4
(Source: Developed by SPSS)
Valid answers: 32
Participants utilising Class 0 EV: 20
Percentage of parties operating Type 0 EV: (20 / 32) * 100% ≈ 62.5%
Participants utilising Type 1 EV: 11
Percentage of parties operating Type 1 EV: (11 / 32) * 100% ≈ 34.4%
Participants utilising Type 3 EV: 1
Allocation of participants operating Type 3 EV: (1 / 32) * 100% ≈ 3.1%
The cumulative rate describes the running sum of the valid rates (Qiu 2023). In this case, the incremental rate of 62.5% shows that 62.5% of participants are operating Type 0 EVs, and so on. The absent responses recommend that there are 3 performers who did not supply info about the kind of EV they are operating.
Question 5: For how long you are using EV?
The comeback metric displays that 90% of the respondents have lived using EVs for 1-3 years, while 6.7% have been operating EVs for 4-6 years, and 0% have been employing EVs for 7-9 years or more additional than 10 years.
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | .0 | 27 | 77.1 | 90.0 | 90.0 |
| 1.0 | 2 | 5.7 | 6.7 | 96.7 | |
| 3.0 | 1 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 30 | 85.7 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 5 | 14.3 | ||
| Total | 35 | 100.0 | |||
Table 4: Results of question 5
(Source: Developed by SPSS)
Correct responses: 30
Participants operating EV for 0 periods: 27
Percentage of parties operating EV for 0 time: (27 / 30) * 100% ≈ 90.0%
Participants operating EV for 1 duration: 2
Percentage of parties employing EV for 1 term: (2 / 30) * 100% ≈ 6.7%
Participants operating EV for 3 terms: 1
Share of participants operating EV for 3 duration: (1 / 30) * 100% ≈ 3.3%
Question 5. A
The reality that one respondent has identified that they have been operating an EV for 6 months is also fascinating because it advances that there is a growing inquisitiveness about EVs in India (Malagi and Ramya, 2022). As the market ripens, it is likely that more individuals will activate operating EVs, and that the moderate length of period that people use EVs will improve
Question 5. B: Would you like to describe or comment on your experience further about this question?
This proposes that the Indian EV demand is nonetheless in its early stages of consequence. Most EV users in India maintain only been using EVs for a short period of time (Singh and Bohre, 2020). This could be due to a numeral of factors, such as the fact that EVs are still relatively new in India and that the charge of EVs is still relatively high.
Figure 07: Response Analysis of Question 5. b
(Self-Collected)
Question 6: Why you switch to EV?
One respondent has remarked on their experience of using an EV for 3 months. The respondent said that they are optimistic about their EV and that it is a good vehicle with good economizing and is best for inside the metropolis.
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | .0 | 25 | 71.4 | 80.6 | 80.6 |
| 2.0 | 4 | 11.4 | 12.9 | 93.5 | |
| 3.0 | 2 | 5.7 | 6.5 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 31 | 88.6 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 4 | 11.4 | ||
| Total | 35 | 100.0 | |||
Table 5: Results of question 6
(Source: Developed by SPSS)
Proper responses: 31
Parties who changed to EV for explanation 0: 25
Percentage of parties who changed to EV for logic 0: (25 / 31) * 100% ≈ 80.6%
Participants who changed to EV for explanation 2: 4
Percentage of parties who changed to EV for explanation 2: (4 / 31) * 100% ≈ 12.9%
Parties who switched to EV for explanation 3: 2
Percentage of parties who changed to EV for reason 3: (2 / 31) * 100% ≈ 6.5%
Question 7: Would you prefer again to go for fuel vehicle?
This indicates that there is a notable split in opinion on this subject. The fact that 35.5% of respondents would prefer to go for a fuel vehicle is interesting. This suggests that there are still some somebody who are not convinced about the benefits of EVs (Chawlaet al. 2023). This somebody may be worried about the range of EVs, the availability of assessing infrastructure, or the cost of EVs.
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | .0 | 11 | 31.4 | 35.5 | 35.5 |
| 1.0 | 19 | 54.3 | 61.3 | 96.8 | |
| 3.0 | 1 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 31 | 88.6 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 4 | 11.4 | ||
| Total | 35 | 100.0 | |||
Table 6: Results of question 7
(Source: Developed by SPSS)
Valid answers: 31
Participants who choose to go for a fuel automobile similarly: 11
Share of participants who choose to go for a fuel motorcar besides: (11 / 31) * 100% ≈ 35.5%
Parties who would not choose to go for a fuel automobile again: 19
Percentage of parties who would not select to go for a fuel motorcar again: (19 / 31) * 100% ≈ 61.3%
Participants who did not supply a response (missing): 1
Share of participants with absent answers: (1 / 31) * 100% ≈ 3.2%
Question 7. A
There could be several bases why the respondent has answered this way; They may be remaining to see how the EV demand evolves in the future (Lam and Mercure, 2022). They may also be examined about the range of EVs, the availability of collaring infrastructure, or the charge of EVs. It is also attainable that the respondent is absolutely open to both choices and that they would be optimistic about either a fuel conveyance or an EV.
Question 8: Do you recommend electric vehicle to anyone?
The rejoinder metric authenticates that 90.3% of the respondents would suggest an EV to a person else, while 9.7% would not, and 0% would select something else. This advances that the vast preponderance of respondents are elated with their EVs and that they would advise them to others (Gersdorfet al. 2020).
Question 9: Is finding charging point convenient in India?
The riposte metric authenticates that 36.7% of the respondents find it fortunate to find a charging pinpoint in India, while 60% do not, and 3.3% would choose something else. This advances that there is a consequential divide in a statement on this issue. Some people find it easy to find charging junctures, while others find it complicated.
Question 9. A
This advances that there is still some creation to be done before capturing points are fortunate for everyone in India. However, the reality that 36.7% of respondents encounter it opportunely to find a charging significance is an optimistic indication.
Question 9. B: Would you like to describe or comment on your experience further about this question?
It is enjoyable to note that the portion of respondents who find it fortunate to find a charging cusp is much lower than the portion of respondents who concede an EV (Shitole and Duggal, 2023). This submits that there are still some challenges to overwhelm before charging attributes are opportunely for everyone in India.
Question 10: Are you satisfied with your electric vehicle?
The fact that 71% of respondents are pleased with their EVs is favorable for the tomorrow of EVs in India. It advances that there is a growing ultimatum for EVs and that somebody are seeing the concessions of EVs, such as the down cost of function, the environmental blessings, and the quietude
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | .0 | 7 | 20.0 | 22.6 | 22.6 |
| 1.0 | 15 | 42.9 | 48.4 | 71.0 | |
| 2.0 | 7 | 20.0 | 22.6 | 93.5 | |
| 3.0 | 2 | 5.7 | 6.5 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 31 | 88.6 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 4 | 11.4 | ||
| Total | 35 | 100.0 | |||
Table 7: Results of question 10
(Source: Developed by SPSS)
Correct responses: 31
Parties who are not comfortable with their electric automobile: 7
Allocation of parties who are not comfortable: (7 / 31) * 100% ≈ 22.6%
Participants who are delighted with their electric auto: 15
Percentage of parties who are comfortable: (15 / 31) * 100% ≈ 48.4%
Participants who delivered a neutral reaction (neither comfortable nor disappointed): 7
Percentage of parties who supplied a neutral answer: (7 / 31) * 100% ≈ 22.6%
Participants who did not supply an explanation (missing): 2
Share of parties with the missing answer: (2 / 31) * 100% ≈ 6.5%
The incremental percentage means the running sum of the right percentages. In this case, the incremental rate of 22.6% means that 22.6% of parties are not comfortable with their electric automobile, and 48.4% are comfortable. This calculation provides an understanding of the participants’ satisfaction groups with their electric automobiles (Siregar 2021). The missing reactions recommend that there are 2 parties who did not deliver a statement about their happiness with their electric automobile.
Question 11: What are challenges you face while using EV?
The particular that the absence of charging attributes is the most typical challenge encountered by EV users is not unexpected. India has a relatively small number of seizing points corresponding to other polities, and this can construct it demanding for EV users to find a place to authorize their automobiles.
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | .0 | 14 | 40.0 | 45.2 | 45.2 |
| 1.0 | 8 | 22.9 | 25.8 | 71.0 | |
| 2.0 | 7 | 20.0 | 22.6 | 93.5 | |
| 3.0 | 2 | 5.7 | 6.5 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 31 | 88.6 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 4 | 11.4 | ||
| Total | 35 | 100.0 | |||
Table 1: Results of question 11
(Source: Developed by SPSS)
Valid answers: 31
Participants encountering challenge 0 while operating an EV: 14
Percentage of parties encountering challenge 0: (14 / 31) * 100% ≈ 45.2%
Participants encountering challenge 1 while operating an EV: 8
Percentage of parties encountering challenge 1: (8 / 31) * 100% ≈ 25.8%
Participants encountering challenge 2 while employing an EV: 7
Percentage of parties meeting challenge 2: (7 / 31) * 100% ≈ 22.6%
Participants encountering challenge 3 while operating an EV: 2
Percentage of parties encountering challenge 3: (2 / 31) * 100% ≈ 6.5%
The incremental percentage describes the running capacity of the valid allocations. In this issue, the cumulative rate of 45.2% demonstrates that 45.2% of parties meet challenge 0 while operating an EV, and so on. The absent responses indicate that there are 4 participants who did not supply details about the challenges they encounter while operating an EV. This investigation delivers an understanding of the challenges parties face while utilising EVs.
Question 12: How loyal are you for your EV?
The retort metric shows that an extensive prevalence of respondents are steadfast to their EVs. Specifically, 98.4% of respondents are either very delighted or glad use the words from the survey – satisfied with their EVs. This proffers that EV users are typically happy with their conveyances and are likely to persist in operating them in the future.
Figure 17: Response Analysis of Question 12
(Self-Collected)
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | .0 | 6 | 17.1 | 19.4 | 19.4 |
| 1.0 | 14 | 40.0 | 45.2 | 64.5 | |
| 2.0 | 9 | 25.7 | 29.0 | 93.5 | |
| 3.0 | 1 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 96.8 | |
| 4.0 | 1 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 31 | 88.6 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 4 | 11.4 | ||
| Total | 35 | 100.0 | |||
Table 8: Results of question 12
(Source: Developed by SPSS)
Valid answers: 31
Participants who are not dedicated to their EV (Commitment score 0): 6
Percentage of parties with adherence score 0: (6 / 31) * 100% ≈ 19.4%
Participants with dedication score 1: 14
Percentage of parties with adherence score 1: (14 / 31) * 100% ≈ 45.2%
Participants with commitment score 2: 9
Percentage of parties with commitment score 2: (9 / 31) * 100% ≈ 29.0%
Participants with commitment score 3: 1
Percentage of parties with commitment score 3: (1 / 31) * 100% ≈ 3.2%
Participants with commitment score 4: 1
Percentage of parties with commitment score 4: (1 / 31) * 100% ≈ 3.2%
Question 13: What is the factor that influences your decision for future buying?
The particular that environmental benevolence is the most consequential factor suggests that somebody is increasingly mindful of the environmental blessings of EVs (Motwani and Patil, 2019). The fortune of the motorcar enterprise is also a noteworthy element, as people are examining automobiles that are seen as being additionally sufferable and future-proof.
Figure 18: Response Analysis of Question 13
(Self-Collected)
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | .0 | 24 | 68.6 | 77.4 | 77.4 |
| 1.0 | 7 | 20.0 | 22.6 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 31 | 88.6 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 4 | 11.4 | ||
| Total | 35 | 100.0 | |||
Table 9: Results of question 13
(Source: Developed by SPSS)
Valid replies: 31
Participants affected by element 0 for prospective buying: 24
Percentage of parties affected by element 0: (24 / 31) * 100% ≈ 77.4%
Participants affected by element 1 for future buying: 7
Percentage of parties affected by aspect 1: (7 / 31) * 100% ≈ 22.6%
The cumulative rate describes the running total of the accurate rates. In this case, the incremental rate of 77.4% demonstrates that 77.4% of parties are charmed by element 0 for future buying judgments. The missing answers recommend that there are 4 parties who did not supply information about the elements affecting their future buying judgments. This study provides discernment into the elements that control participants’ determinations for future buying.
Question 14: Other Experience with Electrical Vehicles
The attribute that the numerous shared ventures reported by EV users are flattering suggests that EVs are naturally well-received by Indian customers (Bhagwatet al. 2019). They are witnessed as being comfortable to use, relaxing, and non-polluting.
Correlation 01
| Output Created | 01-AUG-2023 07:28:31 | |
| Comments | ||
| Input | Active Dataset | DataSet1 |
| Filter | <none> | |
| Weight | <none> | |
| Split File | <none> | |
| N of Rows in Working Data File | 35 | |
| Missing Value Handling | Definition of Missing | User-defined missing values are treated as missing. |
| Cases Used | Statistics for each pair of variables are based on all the cases with valid data for that pair. | |
| Syntax | CORRELATIONS
/[email protected] @4.WhattypeofEVyouareusing /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. |
|
| Resources | Processor Time | 00:00:00.00 |
| Elapsed Time | 00:00:00.00 | |
Table 10: Results of question 14
(Source: Developed by SPSS)
The supplied analysis shows the Pearson correlation between two variables:
Pearson Correlation with “What kind of EV you are operating?”: r = 0.699**
Effectiveness group (2-tailed): p < 0.001 (Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.000)
Sample size (N): 35
Pearson Correlation with “Do you Possess an Electrical Automobile (EV)?”: r = 0.699**
Importance class (2-tailed): p < 0.001 (Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.000)
Sample size (N): 32
Interpretation:
The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) calculates the power and movement of the linear association between two constant variables (Zein et al. 2019). In this study, we have two variables: “Do you possess an Electrical Vehicle (EV)?” and “What kind of EV you are operating?”
The correlation coefficient of 0.699** shows a strong favourable correlation between these two variables. The importance, level (p-value) of less than 0.001 advances that this correlation is statistically important, suggesting that it is improbable to have happened by circumstance.
Correlation 02
| 2. Do you Own Electrical Vehicle (EV)? | 4. What type of EV you are using? | ||
| 2. Do you Own Electrical Vehicle (EV)? | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .699** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | ||
| N | 35 | 32 | |
| 4. What type of EV you are using? | Pearson Correlation | .699** | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | ||
| N | 32 | 32 | |
| Table 11: Correlation 02
(Source: Developed by SPSS) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) |
|||
Correlation coefficient: tau_b = 0.351*
Effectiveness group (p-value): p = 0.047 (effective at the 0.05 level)
Sample dimension (N): 35
Correlation coefficient: rho = 0.356*
Effectiveness group (p-value): p = 0.045 (effective at the 0.05 level)
Sample dimension (N): 35
Interpretation:
Both Kendall’s tau_b and Spearman’s rho are non-parametric correlation coefficients utilised to estimate the potency and demand of the relationship between two ordinal variables (such as Likert scale answers).
The correlation coefficients for both trials are favourable (0.351* and 0.356*) and effective at the 0.05 level (p < 0.05). This shows a statistically important moderate optimistic correlation between “Do you Possess an Electrical Vehicle (EV)?” and “What kind of EV you are operating?” among the observed parties.
Summary
It is to be supposed that the challenges enclose the lack of assigning points, the determinate availability of EV ideals, and the high cost of EVs. The survey results supply a valuable understanding of the EV market in India. They can be used to notify country approaches and industry conclusions. The management can play a role in managing the challenges encountering the EV demand, such as by feeding assistance for EVs and infusing in seizing infrastructure. The assiduousness can also play a position in producing more inexpensive and longer-range EVs
References
Noviana, N. and Oktaviani, L., 2022. The correlation between college student personality types and English proficiency ability at Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 3(1), pp.54-60. http://jim.teknokrat.ac.id/index.php/english-language-teaching/article/view/1709
Qiu, H., 2023, July. Research on the Correlation between Digital Cryptocurrencies Based on Spss Statistical Method. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Bigdata Blockchain and Economy Management, ICBBEM 2023, May 19–21, 2023, Hangzhou, China. https://eudl.eu/doi/10.4108/eai.19-5-2023.2334355
Siregar, P.A., 2021. Manajemen Data SPSS (Statistical Package For The Social Sciences). http://repository.uinsu.ac.id/12295/1/2021%20Ganjil_Putra%20Apriadi%20Siregar_DIKTAT%20Manajemen%20Data.pdf
Zein, S.Z., Yasyifa, L.Y., Ghozi, R.G., Harahap, E., Badruzzaman, F.H. and Darmawan, D., 2019. Pengolahan dan Analisis Data Kuantitatif Menggunakan Aplikasi SPSS. Teknologi Pembelajaran, 4(2). https://journal.institutpendidikan.ac.id/index.p
Know more about UniqueSubmission’s other writing services:
