1. Evaluating the impact of disaggregated survey panel responses on Business Tendency Survey Results
- GM Pellissier
- DG Nel
* Stellenbosch University, South Africa

2. Average Participating BER Survey Panel Response

3. Disaggregated BER survey panel responses

4. Disaggregated BER survey panel analysis

5. Disaggregated BER Building survey responses
Survey Results
Response
Mean
Std, Dev,
Confidence
Regulars
55,4
14,4
Irregulars
65,0
20,6
Occasionals
59,8
24,5
Activity
3,5
23,6
7,9
29,4
3,2
42,0
Prices
33,7
16,5
26,2
16,3
40,6
16,2

6. Disaggregated BER Manufacturing survey responses
Survey Results
Response
Mean
Std, Dev,
Confidence
Regulars
42,2
14,6
Irregulars
62,2
13,4
Occasionals
57,8
12,6
Production
7,8
24,8
34,3
17,3
26,8
25,5
Prices
32,5
45,3
44,4
44,7
55,2
33,4

7. Disaggregated BER Retail survey responses
Survey Results
Response
Mean
Std, Dev,
Confidence
Regulars
62,9
23,8
Irregulars
68,8
19,3
Occasionals
54,8
25,9
Sales
13,1
32,4
16,2
28,7
22,2
35,7
Prices
18,3
47,9
30,0
40,5
43,4
47,4

8. Disaggregated BER survey responses
Building
Manufacturing
Retail
Activity
Production
Prices

9. Repeated measures analysis of variance (RM_Anova)
The purpose of the RM_Anova procedure is to compare simultaneously the means in several groups/variables and determine if significant changes occurred over a time period

10. RM_Anova Considerations
RM_Anova analyses were considered :
to evaluate the stated hypothesis of no differences in survey results between disaggregated BER panel responses
to determine if significant changes occurred over time between the different groups of disaggregated BER survey results

11. Implementation of RM_Anova
RM_Anova were implimented to test the hypothesis of similarity, between the survey results generated by the three groups of participating respondents, within each survey quarter as well as between quarterly responses.
There are two main effects 1) survey responses over the total period, called ‘Survey’ and 2) survey responses within each survey quarter, called ‘Quarter’

12. RM_Anova Assumption
RM_Anova analysis is done under the assumption of compound symmetry i.e. requiring no significant interaction between the stated time series data. If rejected these interactions should be interpreted, otherwise the main effects of ‘Survey’ and ‘Quarter’ can be interpreted

13. RM_Anova : Manufacturing Confidence

14. RM_Anova : Manufacturing Confidence

15. Hypothesis evaluation on a 5% significance level
RM_Anova of disaggregated Manufacturing survey results on buss confidence
Evaluation of Interactive effects (Hypothesis of No Interaction)
Effect
P-value
Hypothesis evaluation on a 5% significance level
Survey
0,103 Y
Quarter
0,004 X
Quarter*Survey
0,816
Y - acceptance of Hypothesis
X - rejection of Hypothesis

16. RM_Anova : Manufacturing Confidence

17. RM_Anova : Manufacturing Confidence

18. RM_Anova : Manufacturing Confidence

19. RM_Anova of Manufacturing survey results on buss confidence
Evaluation of Interactive effects
(H0 of No Interaction)
Relationship
P-value
Hypothesis evaluation on a 5% significance level
Survey
0,103 Y
Quarter
0,004 X
Quarter*Survey
0,816
Evaluation of Main effects
(H0 of No Differences)
A:B:C (Survey)
A:B (Survey)
0,135
A:C (Survey
0,352
B:C (Survey)
1,000
Y - acceptance of Hypothesis
X - rejection of Hypothesis
 - inconclusive Hypothesis I,e, interaction between survey results

20. RM_Anova of Manufacturing survey results on production
Evaluation of Interactive effects
(H0 of No Interaction)
Relationship
P-value
Hypothesis evaluation on a 5% significance level
Survey
0,059 Y
Quarter
0,006 X
Quarter*Survey
0,336
Evaluation of Main effects
(H0 of No Differences)
A:B:C (Survey)
A:B (Survey)
0,072
A:C (Survey
0,259
B:C (Survey)
1,000
Y - acceptance of Hypothesis
X - rejection of Hypothesis
 - inconclusive Hypothesis I,e, interaction between survey results

21. RM_Anova of Manufacturing survey results on prices
Evaluation of Interactive effects
(H0 of No Interaction)
Relationship
P-value
Hypothesis evaluation on a 5% significance level
Survey
0,134 Y
Quarter
0,000 X
Quarter*Survey
0,032
Evaluation of Main effects
(H0 of No Differences)
A:B:C (Survey) ?
A:B (Survey)
0,408
A:C (Survey
0,184
B:C (Survey)
1,000
Y - acceptance of Hypothesis
X - rejection of Hypothesis
 - inconclusive Hypothesis I,e, interaction between survey results

22. RM_Anova of Retail survey results on buss confidence
Evaluation of Interactive effects
(H0 of No Interaction)
Relationship
P-value
Hypothesis evaluation on a 5% significance level
Survey
0,459 Y
Quarter
0,000 X
Quarter*Survey
0,473
Evaluation of Main effects
(H0 of No Differences)
A:B:C (Survey)
A:B (Survey)
1,000
A:C (Survey
0,899
B:C (Survey)
0,855
Y - acceptance of Hypothesis
X - rejection of Hypothesis
 - inconclusive Hypothesis I,e, interaction between survey results

23. RM_Anova of Retail survey results on sales
Evaluation of Interactive effects
(H0 of No Interaction)
Relationship
P-value
Hypothesis evaluation on a 5% significance level
Survey
0,694 Y
Quarter
0,171
Quarter*Survey
0,087
Evaluation of Main effects
(H0 of No Differences)
A:B:C (Survey)
A:B (Survey)
1,000
A:C (Survey
B:C (Survey)
Y - acceptance of Hypothesis
X - rejection of Hypothesis
 - inconclusive Hypothesis I,e, interaction between survey results

24. RM_Anova of Retail survey results on prices
Evaluation of Interactive effects
(H0 of No Interaction)
Relationship
P-value
Hypothesis evaluation on a 5% significance level
Survey
0,973 Y
Quarter
0,000 X
Quarter*Survey
0,187
Evaluation of Main effects
(H0 of No Differences)
A:B:C (Survey)
A:B (Survey)
1,000
A:C (Survey
B:C (Survey)
Y - acceptance of Hypothesis
X - rejection of Hypothesis
 - inconclusive Hypothesis I,e, interaction between survey results

25. RM_Anova of Building survey results on buss confidence
Evaluation of Interactive effects
(H0 of No Interaction)
Relationship
P-value
Hypothesis evaluation on a 5% significance level
Survey
0,196 Y
Quarter
0,000 X
Quarter*Survey
0,069
Evaluation of Main effects
(H0 of No Differences)
A:B:C (Survey)
A:B (Survey)
0,252
A:C (Survey
1,000
B:C (Survey)
0,955
Y - acceptance of Hypothesis
X - rejection of Hypothesis
 - inconclusive Hypothesis I,e, interaction between survey results

26. RM_Anova of Building survey results on activity
Evaluation of Interactive effects
(H0 of No Interaction)
Relationship
P-value
Hypothesis evaluation on a 5% significance level
Survey
0,278 Y
Quarter
0,000 X
Quarter*Survey
0,018
Evaluation of Main effects
(H0 of No Differences)
A:B:C (Survey) ?
A:B (Survey)
0,791
A:C (Survey
1,000
B:C (Survey)
0,399
Y - acceptance of Hypothesis
X - rejection of Hypothesis
 - inconclusive Hypothesis I,e, interaction between survey results

27. RM_Anova of Building survey results on prices
Evaluation of Interactive effects
(H0 of No Interaction)
Relationship
P-value
Hypothesis evaluation on a 5% significance level
Survey
0,119 Y
Quarter
0,000 X
Quarter*Survey
0,010
Evaluation of Main effects
(H0 of No Differences)
A:B:C (Survey) ?
A:B (Survey)
0,789
A:C (Survey
0,771
B:C (Survey)
0,142
Y - acceptance of Hypothesis
X - rejection of Hypothesis
 - inconclusive Hypothesis I,e, interaction between survey results

28. QUARTER * SURVEY; LS_Means

29. Summary Disaggregated BER Survey Results
Building
Manufac-
turing
Retail
Confidence 
Activity 
Prices
 - acceptance of Hypothesis(5% significance) i,e, survey results are the same
X - rejection of Hypothesis(5% significance) i,e, survey results are not the same
 - inconclusive Hypothesis i,e, interaction between survey results

30. Conclusion
Institutions running Business Tendency surveys based on voluntary panel participation can rest assure that in statistical terms the survey results between Regular and Irregular survey respondents can be interpreted as being the same

31. Evaluating the impact of disaggregated survey panel responses on Business Tendency Survey Results