Business of Blood Bank of Delmarva - Statistics Project Example

Case scenario Introduction Unlike in the past present managers, businesses and organization not for profit need to make smart decisions. Scholars have shown that statistics is a tool that has been used by managers across all fields to be more confident when dealing with unpredictable future thanks to available data (Bradley, 2007). It allows managers to make quicker and smarter decisions as well as stable leadership that leave all relevant stakeholders satisfied and happy. In this case the paper will deal with a Blood Bank of Delmarva that is part of the America’s blood centers offering blood as well as other blood related components to about 17 hospitals in Delmarva Peninsula. According to records about 350 blood donors are needed each day to meet the rising demands of blood transfusion. This paper will determine the level of measurement or type of scale for each variable investigated, briefly discuss the profile of the sample by performing a descriptive analysis and summarize the finding of selected questions and lastly a discussion of the marketing implications the findings obtained have. SPSS will be used to carry out necessary Question 1 Scale of measurement Data collected by researchers through questionnaires and other methods of data collection fall in one of the four levels of measurements or type of scale. These types of scale include nominal, ordinal interval and ratio scale (Michell, 1997). It is important for researchers to have an understanding of the major characteristics of these levels of measurements so that they can be able to apply suitable statistics and transformation scales which later translate to proper inferences and conclusions (Pallant, 2007). Nominal scale is the most simplest of operations. Usually names or labels are used to refer to attributes. There are two main categories of nominal scale; dichotomous and non-dichotomous. The former is exemplified by attributes such as males, females while the later can refer to race such as African-America, Latino, Caucasian, and Native American among others, and this is made up of multiple values. With such scale the only statistic applicable is the mode and when numbers are used, they only help researchers in simplifying the data through coding for instance male=0 and female=1. This later makes it possible to perform such statistics as regression through dummy variables (Kontari, 2004). In most cases data can only be put into groups and counted by frequency. According to Burns & Bush, 2010 data in ordinal scale refers to data sets that are ranked. This help in describing order and not the relative size of the differences between attributes under measurement. It is worth noting that numbers given to attributes or variables only represent rank orders of the entities under assessment. It is worth mentioning that data under this scale allows only two measures of central tendency to be performed, mode and median. Just like nominal scale, ordinal scale data can have dichotomous or non-dichotomous ordinal scale such as ‘passed’, ‘failed’ and ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Slightly agree’, ‘Agree’ ‘Neutral’, ‘Disagree’, ‘Strongly disagree’ respectively. The third type of scale is interval. This includes all quantitative variables where it is possible to multiply a given variable by any real number. When temperature is measured in Celsius scale, it gives a perfect example of data in interval scale (Ross, 2009). It is worth mentioning that the true zero point for data interval scale is arbitrary, similarly the ratio or differences between numbers has no statistical significance or meaning and mathematical operations for instance division cannot be performed directly. However ratio of difference can be shown such that 2A is twice A. Measures of central tendency such as mode, median and mean can be used to explain the variables in this scale (Burns & Bush, 2010). The last scale of measurement is ratio scale; it is the highest level of measurement. Attributes in this scale have a fixed origin (true zero point) and examples include height, weight, mass, length as well as time. It is worth noting that the name ratio scale is attributed to the fact that measurements are the estimates of the ratio between a degree of a continuous quantity and a unit degree of the same kind (Michell, 1997). Data on this scale can be subjected to any of the statistical measures. Table 1 Level of measurements for all attributes in the questionnaire Level of measurement Questions Nominal 3,5,10 , 12,13, 15 and 19 Ordinal 7, 8, and 9 Interval 4 and 6 Ratio 1, 2, 11, 14, 16 and 17 Question 2 a) Demographics Demographic include all those attributes that gives more insight on a given population. In this case attributes that will be examined include, age, gender, race, income, marital status, family size, status of employment, level of education and duration of stay in a given location or place of residence (Coakes, Steed & Price, 2008). Table 2 summery of variables Category Percentage Category Percentage Level of education Employed Yes (70.3 No (29.7) Some High School 1.0% Donate blood Yes (84.0%) High School 19.6% No (16.0%) Some College 22.7% Member of BBD Yes (85.1%) Associates Degree 16.0% No (14.9%) Marital status Bachelors Degree 21.1% Single 19.5%, Masters/ MBA 16.5% Married 64.1% MD / PhD 3.1%) Widowed 2.6% Length of stay Divorced 9.7% Less than 1 year 2.0% 1-2 years 4.6% Separated 1.0% 3-5 years 13.8% 6-10 years 10.2% Never married 3.1% > 10 years 69.4% Family size 1 18.9% 2-3 58.7% 4-6 21.9% 7-9 0.5% Race Appreciated for donating blood Caucasian 90.8% African American 5.1% Yes 70.5% Asian or Pacific Islander 0.5% Native American 1.5% No 29.75% Hispanic 1.5% Other 0.5% From table 2 it is evident that 29.7% of the respondents were not employed while 70.3% were employed by the time the survey was carried out. Concerning marital status of the respondents, it is apparent that 38 individuals were single, 6 never married, 125 were married, 2 were currently separated19 were divorced while 5 were widowed, these represents 19.5%, 3.1%, 64.1%, 1.0%, 9.7% and 2.6% of the respondents in that order. As shown in table 2 1.0% of the respondents had some high school education, 19.6% were high school graduate, 22.7% had attained some collage education, 16.0% had associate degrees, 21.1% had bachelor’s degree, and 16.5% held masters or MBA while 3.1% had attained MD or PhD. From the finding it is evident that majority of the respondents had acquired some collage education closely followed by those with bachelor’s degree while very few had some high school education. It is evident that majority of the respondents are females represented by 112 against 88 males. This represents 56.0% and 44.0% in that order. Concerning race or ethnicity most of the respondents, 90.8% were Caucasian, 5.1% were African-American, Hispanic and Native American or Alaskan Native were represented by 1.5% each, Asian or Pacific Islanders and others were represented by 0.5% each (Table 2). From table 3 it is apparent that the mean, median, minimum, maximum, standard deviation is 49.03 years, 53 year, 17 years, 70 years13.86 years respectively. From the histogram it can be concluded that majority of the respondents were over 50 years old hence skewed to the right. Table 3 Descriptive statistics for respondents’ age Statistic Std. Error How old are you? Mean 49.03 .980 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 47.10 Upper Bound 50.96 5% Trimmed Mean 49.51 Median 53.00 Variance 191.949 Std. Deviation 13.855 Minimum 17 Maximum 70 Range 53 Interquartile Range 24 Skewness -.509 .172 Kurtosis -.918 .342 Concerning the length of time the respondents have lived in the community it emerged that 69.4% have lived in the community for more than 10 years, followed by those who have lived in the community for a period of between 3 and 5 years standing as 13.8%, those who have lived for between 6 and 10 years represented 13.8% of the respondents, 4.6% and 2.0% of the respondents have lived in the community for 1-2 years and less than one year respectively (Table 2). From table 2 it is evident that majority of the respondents had a household of family size between 2 and 3 members (58.7%), followed by 4-6 (21.9%), those having 1 were represented by 18.9% and very few had a household family size of between 7 and 9 which was represented by 0.5%. It is evident that those earning between $40,000 to $59,999 and more than $100,000 were represented by 35 respondents each which translates to 21.2% for each. Those earning between $20,000 and $39,999, $60,000 and $79,999, $80,000 and $99,999 and less than $20,000 are represented by 31, 30,23 and 11 which translates to 18.8%, 18.2%, 13.9% and 6.7% in that order. From this result it is apparent that there are those who earn a lot of money while there are some who earn very little income. b) Blood donation Question 1 through 3 of the questionnaire will be used to describe how the respondents donated blood. When asked about the number of times the respondents have donated blood in the last two years, it is evident that the means was 3.16 times, median and mode was 1.0, standard deviation was 3.32 while the range was 12 (Table 4). Table 4 Number of times the respondents donated blood in the last 2 years N Valid 200 Missing 0 Mean 3.16 Median 1.00 Mode 1 Std. Deviation 3.316 Range 12 Minimum 0 Maximum 12 Concerning whether the respondents have donated blood to BBD it emerged that 168 translating to 84.0% have donated blood to BBD while only 32 which is only 16.0% have not donated their blood to BBD (Table 2). Table 5 frequency of respondents donating blood Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid More often than every 6 months 46 23.0 23.1 23.1 Once every 6 months 28 14.0 14.1 37.2 Once every 12 months 36 18.0 18.1 55.3 Once every 18 months 10 5.0 5.0 60.3 Once every 24 months 20 10.0 10.1 70.4 Once every 48 months 9 4.5 4.5 74.9 Not Sure / Don’t Know, but I have donated previously 50 25.0 25.1 100.0 Total 199 99.5 100.0 Missing System 1 .5 Total 200 100.0 Table 5 shows how often the respondents typically donate blood. 23.1% said they donate blood more often than every 6 months, 14.1% once every 6 months, 18.1% once every 12 months, 5.0% once every 18 months, 10.1% once every 24 months, 4.5% once every 48 months while 25.1% were not sure or they do not know but have donated blood previously. It was of interest to know if there was a difference between males and female respondents when it comes to donating blood. To accomplish this task a cross tabulation was carried out. From table 6 it is evident that more females than males donate blood 94.0% for females against 74.0% for males. Table 6 Are you male or female? * Have you donated blood at the Blood Bank of Delmarva? Cross tabulation Count Have you donated blood at the Blood Bank of Delmarva? Total Yes No Are you male or female? Male 74 14 88 Female 94 18 112 Total 168 32 200 c) Blood Bank of Delmarva membership and use In order to succinctly describe membership and use attributes 4, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the questionnaires are analyzed. From table 2, 85.1% of the respondents were members of the BBD while 14.9% were not members. When asked about whether being a member of BBD makes the respondents feel appreciated, it emerged that majority of the respondents were in agreement that indeed it makes them feel appreciated, 79.4% while only 4.3% were in disagreement with the statement. 16.4% of the respondents were neutral with regards to the question asked (Table 7). Table 7 Being a member of the Blood Bank of Delmarva makes me feel like I am appreciated. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Completely Disagree 2 1.0 1.1 1.1 Disagree 3 1.5 1.6 2.6 Somewhat Disagree 3 1.5 1.6 4.2 Neither Disagree nor Agree 31 15.5 16.4 20.6 Somewhat Agree 21 10.5 11.1 31.7 Agree 51 25.5 27.0 58.7 Completely Agree 78 39.0 41.3 100.0 Total 189 94.5 100.0 Missing System 11 5.5 Total 200 100.0 Figure 1 Part of a special community From figure 1 it is evident that majority of the respondents were in agreements that they feel part of a special community when they are members of the BBD, 75.5% against 5.2% while 19.3 were neutral. From table 8 it emerged that majority of the respondents were in agreement that even if the membership fees for being a member is high, they will not cancel their membership, this is represented by 82.7% against 8.1% who were in disagreement while 9.1 were neutral. Table 8 Even if the $5 ($2 for 65 or older) yearly fee to belong to the Blood Bank of Delmarva was higher, I would not cancel my membership. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Completely Disagree 5 2.5 2.7 2.7 Disagree 7 3.5 3.8 6.5 Somewhat Disagree 3 1.5 1.6 8.1 Neither Disagree nor Agree 17 8.5 9.1 17.2 Somewhat Agree 9 4.5 4.8 22.0 Agree 54 27.0 29.0 51.1 Completely Agree 91 45.5 48.9 100.0 Total 186 93.0 100.0 Missing System 14 7.0 Total 200 100.0 Figure 2 Membership and cost of blood in the hospital From figure 2 it is evident that majority of those who responded to the questionnaires were of the view that if the cost of blood in the hospital goes up, then their membership with BBD will become more important, a total of 123 respondents against a total of 25 respondents who were against the statement while 37 were neutral. d) Attitude towards blood donation To describe the respondents’ attitude towards blood donation variables related to how they feel while donating blood will be analyzed. From fig. 3 it appears that majority of the respondents donate blood holding the attitude that it helps assure them that blood will be available not only to them but also his or her family members when the need for the same arises. It emerged from table 2 that only 29.5% of the respondents believe that BBD makes them feel appreciated for donating blood against 70.5% who held a contrary view. Figure 3 Pie chart of availability of blood to donor and family Table 9 Community support / Someone else needs it Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 85 42.5 51.2 51.2 Yes 81 40.5 48.8 100.0 Total 166 83.0 100.0 Missing System 34 17.0 Total 200 100.0 Based on the finding in table 9 it is apparent that only 48.8% of the respondents felt that their act of donating blood is to support the community or because someone else needs the blood while 51.2% did not feel that blood donation was to support the community. Table 16 shows that only 30.1% believed that blood donation was to cover for blood cost while 69.9% held a contrary view. Table 10 Coverage for blood costs Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 116 58.0 69.9 69.9 Yes 50 25.0 30.1 100.0 Total 166 83.0 100.0 Missing System 34 17.0 Total 200 100.0 Table 11 When I call to make an appointment at the Blood Bank, they get me an appointment as fast as I want. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Completely Disagree 2 1.0 1.1 1.1 Disagree 1 .5 .6 1.7 Somewhat Disagree 2 1.0 1.1 2.8 Neither Disagree nor Agree 14 7.0 7.7 10.5 Somewhat Agree 8 4.0 4.4 14.9 Agree 68 34.0 37.6 52.5 Completely Agree 86 43.0 47.5 100.0 Total 181 90.5 100.0 Missing System 19 9.5 Total 200 100.0 Table 11 shows that majority of the respondents, 89.5% were in agreement that whenever they make an appointment, the same is fixed as soon as possible only 2.8% were of the contrary view. The same is reflected concerning being signed in by receptionists where 92.1% agreed that they did not wait for too long before being signed in only 2.2% were held that they waited for too long before being signed in by receptionists (Table 12). Table 12 When I go to the Blood Bank to donate blood, I don’t have to wait too long for the receptionist to sign me in. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Completely Disagree 2 1.0 1.1 1.1 Disagree 2 1.0 1.1 2.1 Somewhat Disagree 4 2.0 2.1 4.2 Neither Disagree nor Agree 7 3.5 3.7 7.9 Somewhat Agree 9 4.5 4.8 12.7 Agree 57 28.5 30.2 42.9 Completely Agree 108 54.0 57.1 100.0 Total 189 94.5 100.0 Missing System 11 5.5 Total 200 100.0 It is worth noting that when asked about the time the respondents wait before being screened, majority held that they did not need to wait for long after being signed in by receptionists before they were screened for eligibility to donate blood 90.4% against 3.8% (Table 19). Interestingly almost the same result is reflected when respondents were asked whether they feel at ease by staff when they donate blood, 95.8% against 1.5% (Table 13). Table 13 After the receptionist has signed me in; I don’t have to wait too long for my screening interview. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Completely Disagree 2 1.0 1.1 1.1 Somewhat Disagree 5 2.5 2.7 3.8 Neither Disagree nor Agree 11 5.5 5.9 9.7 Somewhat Agree 13 6.5 7.0 16.7 Agree 60 30.0 32.3 48.9 Completely Agree 95 47.5 51.1 100.0 Total 186 93.0 100.0 Missing System 14 7.0 Total 200 100.0 Table 14 The staff makes me feels at ease when I give blood. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Completely Disagree 1 .5 .5 .5 Somewhat Disagree 2 1.0 1.0 1.6 Neither Disagree nor Agree 5 2.5 2.6 4.1 Somewhat Agree 11 5.5 5.7 9.8 Agree 61 30.5 31.6 41.5 Completely Agree 113 56.5 58.5 100.0 Total 193 96.5 100.0 Missing System 7 3.5 Total 200 100.0 80.7% of the respondents felt that the needle being used while they donate blood does not bother them while 9.7% seemed to be concerned (Table 15). Similarly 83.4% of the respondents felt that BBD has been very informative with regards to the membership program while only 2.6% held a contrary opinion (Table 16). Table 15 The needle used during my blood donation does not concern me too much. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Completely Disagree 14 7.0 7.1 7.1 Disagree 5 2.5 2.6 9.7 Somewhat Disagree 8 4.0 4.1 13.8 Neither Disagree nor Agree 11 5.5 5.6 19.4 Somewhat Agree 15 7.5 7.7 27.0 Agree 64 32.0 32.7 59.7 Completely Agree 79 39.5 40.3 100.0 Total 196 98.0 100.0 Missing System 4 2.0 Total 200 100.0 Table 16 The Blood Bank of Delmarva has been very informative about the membership program. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Completely Disagree 3 1.5 1.6 1.6 Disagree 2 1.0 1.0 2.6 Somewhat Disagree 7 3.5 3.6 6.2 Neither Disagree nor Agree 20 10.0 10.4 16.6 Somewhat Agree 22 11.0 11.4 28.0 Agree 68 34.0 35.2 63.2 Completely Agree 71 35.5 36.8 100.0 Total 193 96.5 100.0 Missing System 7 3.5 Total 200 100.0 From table 17 a whopping 97.0% of the respondents felt that the blood they were donating was going to good use against 1.0% who disagreed that they were not confident that the blood they donated was going to good use. Table 17 I am confident that the blood I donate is going to good use. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Completely Disagree 1 .5 .5 .5 Disagree 1 .5 .5 1.0 Neither Disagree nor Agree 4 2.0 2.1 3.1 Somewhat Agree 10 5.0 5.2 8.2 Agree 58 29.0 29.9 38.1 Completely Agree 120 60.0 61.9 100.0 Total 194 97.0 100.0 Missing System 6 3.0 Total 200 100.0 It also emerged that 83. 8% of the respondents held that they were not discouraged from donating blood if they do not always qualify to do so against 6.7% who held a contrary opinion (Table 18). Concerning finding time during the day to donate blood 76.9% expressed the view that they do not have trouble finding such time while 14.4% had trouble finding time during the day to donate blood (Table 19). Table 18 I am not discouraged from donating blood even if I don’t always qualify. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Completely Disagree 4 2.0 2.2 2.2 Disagree 6 3.0 3.4 5.6 Somewhat Disagree 2 1.0 1.1 6.7 Neither Disagree nor Agree 17 8.5 9.5 16.2 Somewhat Agree 12 6.0 6.7 22.9 Agree 59 29.5 33.0 55.9 Completely Agree 79 39.5 44.1 100.0 Total 179 89.5 100.0 Missing System 21 10.5 Total 200 100.0 Table 19 I do not have trouble finding time during the day to donate blood. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Completely Disagree 7 3.5 3.6 3.6 Disagree 11 5.5 5.6 9.2 Somewhat Disagree 10 5.0 5.1 14.4 Neither Disagree nor Agree 17 8.5 8.7 23.1 Somewhat Agree 26 13.0 13.3 36.4 Agree 48 24.0 24.6 61.0 Completely Agree 76 38.0 39.0 100.0 Total 195 97.5 100.0 Missing System 5 2.5 Total 200 100.0 76.9% of the respondents said that they feel like they belong to a special group when they donate blood while 3.5% were of the contrary view (Table 20). Similarly 91.8% of those who answered the questionnaires believed that the staff was focused on them when they were donating blood contrary to 2.5% who did not feel that the staff was focused on them while they were donating blood (Table 21). Table 20 I feel like I belong to a special group when I donate blood. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Completely Disagree 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 Disagree 3 1.5 1.5 3.1 Somewhat Disagree 1 .5 .5 3.6 Neither Disagree nor Agree 38 19.0 19.5 23.1 Somewhat Agree 25 12.5 12.8 35.9 Agree 49 24.5 25.1 61.0 Completely Agree 76 38.0 39.0 100.0 Total 195 97.5 100.0 Missing System 5 2.5 Total 200 100.0 Table 21 When I donate blood, I feel that the staff is focused on me. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Completely Disagree 1 .5 .5 .5 Disagree 2 1.0 1.0 1.5 Somewhat Disagree 2 1.0 1.0 2.6 Neither Disagree nor Agree 11 5.5 5.7 8.2 Somewhat Agree 18 9.0 9.3 17.5 Agree 69 34.5 35.6 53.1 Completely Agree 91 45.5 46.9 100.0 Total 194 97.0 100.0 Missing System 6 3.0 Total 200 100.0 e) Satisfaction with Blood Bank of Delmarva In order to measure how satisfied the respondents were with regards to BBD, question 24 was analyzed to give the general satisfaction of the respondents. It is evident from Fig. 4 that majority of the respondents were satisfied to a varying degree with the BBD, 185 versus 2. Figure 4 Satisfaction of respondents with the BBD f) Performance of Blood Bank of Delmarva To be able to bring forth issues of performance of BBD, questions 26 through 32 are analyzed. From table 22 it is evident that BBD performed well with regards to making people feel that they are helped with blood donation, this is represented by 90.6% against 9.4%. Table 22 Feeling that many people are helped with one donation Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Neither Poor or Good Performance 8 4.0 9.4 9.4 Somewhat Good Performance 22 11.0 25.9 35.3 Extremely Good Performance 55 27.5 64.7 100.0 Total 85 42.5 100.0 Missing System 115 57.5 Total 200 100.0 Table 23 Supporting a good cause by donating blood Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Neither Poor or Good Performance 6 3.0 6.5 6.5 Somewhat Good Performance 23 11.5 25.0 31.5 Extremely Good Performance 63 31.5 68.5 100.0 Total 92 46.0 100.0 Missing System 108 54.0 Total 200 100.0 With regards to supporting good cause by donating blood, BBD was deemed by majority of the respondents to be performing well, represented by 93.5% against 6.5% (Table 23). In table 30 approximately 97.5% of the respondents were of the view that the hospital was performing well allowing people to give back to the community by donating blood. Table 24 Giving back to community by donating blood Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Neither Poor or Good Performance 2 1.0 2.5 2.5 Somewhat Good Performance 26 13.0 32.9 35.4 Extremely Good Performance 51 25.5 64.6 100.0 Total 79 39.5 100.0 Missing System 121 60.5 Total 200 100.0 Concerning the BBD making donor feel that their donation was making a difference, 98.8% said that it was indeed BBD is performing well (Table 24). 94.1% of the respondents believed that BBD is showing good performance with regards to good use of the donated blood (Table 31). On the same note table 32 shows that 93.4% were of the view that BBD is showing a good performance with regards to ensuring that the blood is available to the community. Closely related to this question, respondents were asked to rate the performance of the blood bank with regards to ensuring availability of blood to friends of the donor and 98.4% said that its performance was good (Table 25) Table 25 Blood donation is used for a good cause Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Neither Poor or Good Performance 6 3.0 5.9 5.9 Somewhat Good Performance 26 13.0 25.7 31.7 Extremely Good Performance 69 34.5 68.3 100.0 Total 101 50.5 100.0 Missing System 99 49.5 Total 200 100.0 Table 26 Ensuring blood availability for my community Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Neither Poor or Good Performance 7 3.5 6.7 6.7 Somewhat Good Performance 24 12.0 22.9 29.5 Extremely Good Performance 74 37.0 70.5 100.0 Total 105 52.5 100.0 Missing System 95 47.5 Total 200 100.0 Table 27 Ensuring blood availability for my family / friends Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Neither Poor or Good Performance 2 1.0 1.7 1.7 Somewhat Good Performance 23 11.5 19.2 20.8 Extremely Good Performance 95 47.5 79.2 100.0 Total 120 60.0 100.0 Missing System 80 40.0 Total 200 100.0 From table 27 it emerges that 93.8% were of the view that the staff at the donation site were experienced hence a show of good performance to the organization. Table 27 The staff at the donation site is experienced Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Somewhat Poor Performance 1 .5 1.5 1.5 Neither Poor or Good Performance 3 1.5 4.6 6.2 Somewhat Good Performance 19 9.5 29.2 35.4 Extremely Good Performance 42 21.0 64.6 100.0 Total 65 32.5 100.0 Missing System 135 67.5 Total 200 100.0 3 Marketing implication From the analysis performed, it is evident that the Blood Bank of Delmarva has to take some necessary marketing steps. Top in the list is to have an advertisement that targets men so that more can come out and donate blood since it emerged that more females seems to donate blood compared to their males counterparts. More importantly Blood Bank of Delmarva should come up with better strategies that will ensure that donors feel appreciated for donating blood. One of the ways is for instance organized an annual dinner where donors and even their families enjoy a meal or provide donors with subsidized medical services to mention but a few (Pope, 1993). This will help the organization have a surety that it will continue receiving blood from the locals. References Bradley, N. 2007. Marketing Research. Tools and Techniques. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burns, A. & Bush, R. 2010. Marketing Research. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Coakes, J., Steed, L. & Price, J. 2008. SPSS: Analysis without Anguish: Version 15 for Windows, Milton, QLD: John Wiley & Sons Australia. Kontari, C. 2004. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi: New Age International Michell, J. 1997. Quantitative Science and the Definition of Measurement in Psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 88, pp. 355–383. Pallant, J. 2007. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step-by-step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Pope, J. 1993. Practical Marketing Research. New York: AMACOM. Ross, M. 2009. Introduction to probability and statistics for engineers and scientists. New York: Associated Press. Read More