Hypothesis Testing

Kruskal-Wallis Test
H0: There is no significance difference in response across age category.

H1: There is significance difference in response across age category.

Hypothesis Test Summary

Sr. Null Hypothesis Test Sign Decision
No
1. The factor is considering for Independent 0.285 Null hypothesis is
return of scheme is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of age. Wallis Test rejected.

2. The factor is considering for Independent 0.401 Null hypothesis is

tax benefit is same across the Sample Kruskal failed to be
categories of age. Wallis Test rejected.

3. The factor is considering for Independent 0.443 Null hypothesis is

liquidity is same across the Sample Kruskal failed to be
categories of age. Wallis Test rejected.

4. The factor is considering for Independent 0.919 Null hypothesis is

regular income is same across Sample Kruskal failed to be
the categories of age. Wallis Test rejected.

5. The factor is considering for Independent 0.104 Null hypothesis is

capital appreciation is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of age. Wallis Test rejected.

6. The factor is considering for Independent 0.254 Null hypothesis is

dividend income is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of age. Wallis Test rejected.

7. The factor is considering for Independent 0.155 Null hypothesis is

safety of investment is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of age. Wallis Test rejected.

8. The factor is considering for Independent 0.269 Null hypothesis is

risk exposure is same across Sample Kruskal failed to be
the categories of age. Wallis Test rejected.
 9. The factor is considering for Independent 0.944 Null hypothesis is
ratings of scheme is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of age. Wallis Test rejected.

10. The factor is considering for Independent 0.572 Null hypothesis is

expert advises is same across Sample Kruskal failed to be
the categories of age. Wallis Test rejected.

11. The factor is considering for Independent 0.692 Null hypothesis is

fund past performance is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of age. Wallis Test rejected.

12. The factor is considering for Independent 0.057 Reject the null
fund reputation and brand Sample Kruskal hypothesis.
name is same across the Wallis Test
categories of age.
13. The factor is considering for Independent 0.095 Reject the null
broker recommendation is Sample Kruskal hypothesis.
same across the categories of Wallis Test
age.
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is 0.05

Interpretation: -

In the above table Kruskal Wallis Test is applied. A small p-value indicates strong evidence
against the null hypothesis, so the null hypothesis is rejected. A large p-value indicates weak
evidence against the null hypothesis, so the null hypothesis is failed to be rejected. Here it can
be found that there is significance difference in response across category of age when it come
to the factors considering like fund reputation and brand name, broker recommendation while
there is no significance difference in other response across age category. Hence, there is no
relation between the age and factors consider while investing in mutual fund.
H0: There is no significance difference in response across occupation category.

H1: There is significance difference in response across occupation category.

Hypothesis Test Summary

Sr. Null Hypothesis Test Sign Decision
No
1. The factor is considering for Independent 0.643 Null hypothesis is
return of scheme is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of Wallis Test rejected.
occupation.
2. The factor is considering for Independent 0.145 Null hypothesis is
tax benefit is same across the Sample Kruskal failed to be
categories of occupation. Wallis Test rejected.

3. The factor is considering for Independent 0.324 Null hypothesis is

liquidity is same across the Sample Kruskal failed to be
categories of occupation. Wallis Test rejected.

4. The factor is considering for Independent 0.177 Null hypothesis is

regular income is same across Sample Kruskal failed to be
the categories of occupation. Wallis Test rejected.

5. The factor is considering for Independent 0.383 Null hypothesis is

capital appreciation is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of Wallis Test rejected.
occupation.
6. The factor is considering for Independent 0.068 Reject the null
dividend income is same Sample Kruskal hypothesis.
across the categories of Wallis Test
occupation.
7. The factor is considering for Independent 0.994 Null hypothesis is
safety of investment is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of Wallis Test rejected.
occupation.
8. The factor is considering for Independent 0.754 Null hypothesis is
risk exposure is same across Sample Kruskal failed to be
the categories of occupation. Wallis Test rejected.

9. The factor is considering for Independent 0.321 Null hypothesis is

ratings of scheme is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of Wallis Test rejected.
occupation.
 10. The factor is considering for Independent 0..094 Reject the null
expert advises is same across Sample Kruskal hypothesis.
the categories of occupation. Wallis Test

11. The factor is considering for Independent 0.236 Null hypothesis is

fund past performance is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of Wallis Test rejected.
occupation.
12. The factor is considering for Independent 0.128 Null hypothesis is
fund reputation and brand Sample Kruskal failed to be
name is same across the Wallis Test rejected.
categories of occupation.
13. The factor is considering for Independent 0.296 Null hypothesis is
broker recommendation is Sample Kruskal failed to be
same across the categories of Wallis Test rejected.
occupation.
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is 0.05

Interpretation: -

In the above table Kruskal Wallis Test is applied. A small p-value indicates strong evidence
against the null hypothesis, so the null hypothesis is rejected. A large p-value indicates weak
evidence against the null hypothesis, so the null hypothesis is failed to be rejected. Here it can
be found that there is significance difference in response across category of occupation when
it come to the factors considering like dividend income and expert advises, while there is no
significance difference in other response across occupation category. Hence, there is no
relation between the occupation and factors consider while investing in mutual fund.
H0: There is no significance difference in response across annual income category.

H1: There is significance difference in response across annual income category.

Hypothesis Test Summary

Sr. Null Hypothesis Test Sign Decision
No
1. The factor is considering for Independent 0.726 Null hypothesis is
return of scheme is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of annual Wallis Test rejected.
income.
2. The factor is considering for Independent 0.264 Null hypothesis is
tax benefit is same across the Sample Kruskal failed to be
categories of annual income. Wallis Test rejected.

3. The factor is considering for Independent 0.950 Null hypothesis is

liquidity is same across the Sample Kruskal failed to be
categories of annual income. Wallis Test rejected.

4. The factor is considering for Independent 0.155 Null hypothesis is

regular income is same across Sample Kruskal failed to be
the categories of annual Wallis Test rejected.
income.
5. The factor is considering for Independent 0.608 Null hypothesis is
capital appreciation is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of annual Wallis Test rejected.
income.
6. The factor is considering for Independent 0.716 Null hypothesis is
dividend income is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of annual Wallis Test rejected.
income.
7. The factor is considering for Independent 0.038 Reject the null
safety of investment is same Sample Kruskal hypothesis.
across the categories of annual Wallis Test
income.
8. The factor is considering for Independent 0.752 Null hypothesis is
risk exposure is same across Sample Kruskal failed to be
the categories of annual Wallis Test rejected.
income.
9. The factor is considering for Independent 0.343 Null hypothesis is
ratings of scheme is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of annual Wallis Test rejected.
income.
10. The factor is considering for Independent 0.639 Null hypothesis is
expert advises is same across Sample Kruskal failed to be
the categories of annual Wallis Test rejected.
 income.

11. The factor is considering for Independent 0.588 Null hypothesis is

fund past performance is same Sample Kruskal failed to be
across the categories of annual Wallis Test rejected.
income.
12. The factor is considering for Independent 0.777 Null hypothesis is
fund reputation and brand Sample Kruskal failed to be
name is same across the Wallis Test rejected.
categories of annual income.
13. The factor is considering for Independent 0.974 Null hypothesis is
broker recommendation is Sample Kruskal failed to be
same across the categories of Wallis Test rejected.
annual income.
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is 0.05

Interpretation: -

In the above table Kruskal Wallis Test is applied. A small p-value indicates strong evidence
against the null hypothesis, so the null hypothesis is rejected. A large p-value indicates weak
evidence against the null hypothesis, so the null hypothesis is failed to be rejected. Here it can
be found that there is significance difference in response across category of annual income
when it come to the factors considering like safety of investment while there is no
significance difference in other response across annual income category. Hence, there is no
relation between the annual income and factors consider while investing in mutual fund.

Kruskal-Wallis Test
H0: There is no significance difference in response across annual income category.

H1: There is significance difference in response across annual income category.

Hypothesis Test Summary

Sr. Null Hypothesis Test Sign Decision
No
1. The preferred investment for Independent 0.673 Null hypothesis is
ICICI Prudential mutual fund is Sample failed to be rejected.
same across the categories of Kruskal Wallis
annual income. Test
2. The preferred investment for Independent 0.063 Reject the null
HDFC Mutual Fund is same Sample hypothesis.
across the categories of annual Kruskal Wallis
income. Test
3. The preferred investment for Independent 0.126 Null hypothesis is
Reliance Mutual Fund is same Sample failed to be rejected.
across the categories of annual Kruskal Wallis
income. Test
4. The preferred investment for Independent 0.774 Null hypothesis is
Aditya Birla Sunlife Mutual Sample failed to be rejected.
fund is same across the Kruskal Wallis
categories of annual income. Test
5. The preferred investment for Independent 0.056 Reject the null
SBI Mutual Fund is same Sample hypothesis.
across the categories of annual Kruskal Wallis
income. Test
6. The preferred investment for Independent 0.386 Null hypothesis is
L&T Mutual Fund is same Sample failed to be rejected.
across the categories of annual Kruskal Wallis
income. Test
7. The preferred investment for Independent 0.773 Null hypothesis is
Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund Sample failed to be rejected.
is same across the categories of Kruskal Wallis
annual income. Test
8. The preferred investment for Independent 0.792 Null hypothesis is
DSP Black Rock Mutual Fund Sample failed to be rejected.
is same across the categories of Kruskal Wallis
annual income. Test
9. The preferred investment for Independent 0.382 Null hypothesis is
Axis Mutual Fund is same Sample failed to be rejected.
across the categories of annual Kruskal Wallis
income. Test
 10. The preferred investment for Independent 0.697 Null hypothesis is
IDFC Mutual Fund is same Sample failed to be rejected.
across the categories of annual Kruskal Wallis
income. Test
11. The preferred investment for Independent 0.662 Null hypothesis is
Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund is Sample failed to be rejected.
same across the categories of Kruskal Wallis
annual income. Test
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is 0.05

Interpretation: -

In the above table Kruskal Wallis Test is applied. A small p-value indicates strong evidence
against the null hypothesis, so the null hypothesis is rejected. A large p-value indicates weak
evidence against the null hypothesis, so the null hypothesis is failed to be rejected. Here it can
be found that there is significance difference in response across category of annual income
when it come to preferred mutual fund for investment like HDFC Mutual Fund and SBI
Mutual Fund while there is no significance difference in other response across annual income
category. Hence, there is no relation between the annual income and preferred mutual funds
for investment.
H0: There is no significance difference in response across occupation category.

H1: There is significance difference in response across occupation category.

Hypothesis Test Summary

Sr. Null Hypothesis Test Sign Decision
No
1. The preferred investment for Independent 0.718 Null hypothesis is
ICICI Prudential mutual fund is Sample failed to be rejected.
same across the categories of Kruskal Wallis
occupation. Test
2. The preferred investment for Independent 0.691 Null hypothesis is
HDFC Mutual Fund is same Sample failed to be rejected.
across the categories of Kruskal Wallis
occupation. Test
3. The preferred investment for Independent 0.563 Null hypothesis is
Reliance Mutual Fund is same Sample failed to be rejected.
across the categories of Kruskal Wallis
occupation. Test
4. The preferred investment for Independent 0.781 Null hypothesis is
Aditya Birla Sunlife Mutual Sample failed to be rejected.
fund is same across the Kruskal Wallis
categories of occupation. Test
5. The preferred investment for Independent 0.573 Null hypothesis is
SBI Mutual Fund is same Sample failed to be rejected.
across the categories of Kruskal Wallis
occupation. Test
6. The preferred investment for Independent 0.377 Null hypothesis is
L&T Mutual Fund is same Sample failed to be rejected.
across the categories of Kruskal Wallis
occupation. Test
7. The preferred investment for Independent 0.365 Null hypothesis is
Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund Sample failed to be rejected.
is same across the categories of Kruskal Wallis
occupation. Test
8. The preferred investment for Independent 0.753 Null hypothesis is
DSP Black Rock Mutual Fund Sample failed to be rejected.
is same across the categories of Kruskal Wallis
occupation. Test
9. The preferred investment for Independent 0.551 Null hypothesis is
Axis Mutual Fund is same Sample failed to be rejected.
across the categories of Kruskal Wallis
occupation. Test
 10. The preferred investment for Independent 0.912 Null hypothesis is
IDFC Mutual Fund is same Sample failed to be rejected.
across the categories of Kruskal Wallis
occupation. Test
11. The preferred investment for Independent 0.567 Null hypothesis is
Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund is Sample failed to be rejected.
same across the categories of Kruskal Wallis
occupation. Test
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is 0.05

Interpretation: -

In the above table Kruskal Wallis Test is applied. A small p-value indicates strong evidence
against the null hypothesis, so the null hypothesis is rejected. A large p-value indicates weak
evidence against the null hypothesis, so the null hypothesis is failed to be rejected. Here it can
be found that there is no significance difference in other response across annual income
category. Hence, there is relation between the annual income and preferred mutual funds for
investment.

Cross tabulation
H0: There is no significance relationship between percentage of savings invested and how
many years you are investing.

H1: There is significance relationship between percentage of savings invested and how many
years you are investing.

Percentage of savings you invest in mutual funds * How many years you are investing
in mutual fund schemes Crosstabulation
How many years you are investing in
mutual fund schemes Total
More
One Two Three Four than four
year year year year year
Percentage of Less than Count 12 9 2 2 1 26
savings you 10%
invest in % within How 41.4 16.7 5.4% 10.0 10.0% 17.3
mutual funds many years you % % % %
are investing in
mutual fund
schemes
Count 8 33 16 6 2 65
 10%- % within How 27.6 61.1 43.2% 30.0 20.0% 43.3
20% many years you % % % %
are investing in
mutual fund
schemes
20%- Count 9 11 19 11 3 53
30%
% within How 31.0 20.4 51.4% 55.0 30.0% 35.3
many years you % % % %
are investing in
mutual fund
schemes
More Count 0 1 0 1 4 6
than 30%
% within How 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 5.0% 40.0% 4.0%
many years you
are investing in
mutual fund
schemes
Total Count 29 54 37 20 10 150

% within How 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0% 100.0

many years you % % % % %
are investing in
mutual fund
schemes

Interpretation: -