Factors affecting the satisfaction of investors in industrial zones of Thai Nguyen province

ean Journal of Marketing,Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 8-32. 2. Babakus, Mangold W.G. (1992), Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to hospital services: an empirical investigation, Health Service Research, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 767-86. 3. Berg M.V., Donyai P. (2014), A conceptual framework of patient satisfaction with a pharmacy adherence service, International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, Vol. 36, Issue 1, pp. 182-191. 4. Bhargava S., Pareek A. (2013), Service quality and its effect on customer satisfaction in unorganized retailing, International Journal of Research in Management & Social Science, Vol. 1. Issue 1, pp.89-98. 5. Bo Quang Thuy (2015), Factors affecting investor satisfaction in Ben Tre province,Master thesis, The university of Economics of Ho Chi Minh city, Ho Chi Minh city. 6. Bojanic D.C. (1991), Quality measurement in professional service firms. Journal of Professional Services Marketing. Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 27-36. 7. Carman J.M. (1990), Consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66, pp. 33-55. 8. Cronin J.J.,Taylor S.A. (1992), Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 6, pp. 55-68. 9. Chidlow A., Young S. (2008), Regional Determinants Of Fdi Distribution in Poland, William Davidson Institute, The University of Michigan: wdi.umich.edu/files/publications/workingpapers/wp943.pdf. Accessed on 15/8/2012. 10. Dinh Phi Ho (2011a), Quantitative research method and practical research in agriculture – development economic,The East Publish House, Ho Chi Minh city. 11. Dinh Phi Ho (2015), Development Economics - basic and advanced, The Publish House of Economics , Ho Chi Minh city. 12. Dinh Phi Ho, Ha Minh Trung (2011b), Factors affecting foreign investor satisfaction in industrial zones – quantitative model and policy implications, Journal of Economic Developmen, 254, pp. 30 – 37 13. Dinh Phi Ho, Nguyen Thi Bich Thuy (2011c), Factors affecting foreign investor satisfaction about tax support service – a case study in Dong Nai province, Journal of Economic Development, 244. 14. Dunning J.H. (1977), Trade, location and economic activity and the multinational enterprise: a search for a eclectic approach. London: Macmilan. 118 15. Esaki K. (2013), Analysis of Influence of Price to Customer Satisfaction Based on the Prediction Models, Journal of Intelligent Information Management, Vol.5 No.3, pp.93-102. 16. Feigenbaum, Armand V. (1991), Total Quality Control. The third edition, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 17. Finn D., Lamb C. (1991), An evaluation of the SERVQUAL scale in a retailing setting, Advances in Consumer Research,Vol. 18, pp. 483-90. 18. Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2008), Decree No. 29/2008/ND-CP March 14th , 2008. Regulation of industrial zones, export processing zones and economic zones. 19. Gronroos C. (1984), A service quality model and its marketing implications, European journal of Marketing, 18 (4), pp.36 – 44. 20. Hair J., Anderson R., Tatham R., Black W. (1988), Multivariate data analysis, The fifth edition, Prentice Hall International, London. 21. Ho Duc Hung et al. (2005), Loclal Marketing of Ho Chi Minh city, Sai Gon Culture Publishing House, Ho Chi Minh city. 22. Hoang Trong, Chu Nguyen Mong Ngoc (2008), Data Analysis with SPSS, Hong Duc Publishing House, The university of Economics of Ho Chi Minh city. 23. International Organisation for Standardisation (2015), ISO 9001:2015. Accessed on 11/24/2013. 24. Investopedia (2015), Investor, Accessed on 02/10/2015. 25. Juran J.M. (1988), Juran’s Quality control Handbook, The Fourth edition, McGraw- Hill, New York. 26. Kosteas V.D. (2007), Job Satisfaction and Promotions, Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Vol. 50. No. 1, pp.174-194. 27. Kotler P., Haider D. H., Rein I. (1993), Marketing Place,The Free Press, New York. 28. Kotler P., Keller K.L. (2006), Marketing Management, Pearson Prentice Hall, USA. 29. Lam Thuy Mai (2015), Sustainably developing industrial zones in Thai Nguyen province, Master thesis, Thai Nguyen university of Economic and Business Administration. 30. Lapierre et al. (1996), Use of service quality gap theory to differentiate between food service outlets, The Service Industries Journal. Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 321-46. 31. Le Tuan Loc, Nguyen Thi Tuyet (2013), Factor affecting FDI enterprises' satisfaction: a case study of a typical research in Da Nang, Journal of Development and integration, 11(21), pp. 73-78. 119 32. Lewis, Mitchell (1990), Dimensions of service quality: a study in Istanbul. Managing Service Quality, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 39-43. 33. Likert R.A. (1932), A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, The Science Press, New York. 34. Lin T.C.W. (2015), Reasonable Investor(s), Boston University Law Review, vol.95 (461), pp. 461-518 35. Mai The Cuong (2005), The method of Marketing approaching in FDI attraction, The forum of Vietnam Development & The university of National economics. 36. Management Board of thai nguyen industrial zones (2015), Industrial zone, Accessed on 12/29/2015. 37. Ministry of Construction (2014). National technical regulations on construction planning QCVN 01: 2014 / BXD. Hanoi. 38. Naik K.C.N, Gantasala.S.B and Gantasala V. P (2010), Service Quality (Servqual) and its Effect on Customer Satisfaction in Retailing, European Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 16. No. 2, pp.231-243. 39. Niklas C.D., Dormann C. (2005), The impact of state affect on job satisfaction, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol.14. No.4, pp. 367-388. 40. Nguyen Dinh Tho et al. (2003), Measuring quality of outdoor recreation service in Ho Chi Minh City, Scientific research project, Code CS2003-19. 41. Nguyen Dinh Tho, Nguyen Thi Mai Trang (2009), The local nature and the satisfaction of enterprises, Scientific researchs in Bussiness administration, Statistics publishing house, Ha Noi. 42. Oliver R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the customer,McGraw – Hill, New York. 43. Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V.A., Berry L.L. (1985), A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 41-50. 44. Parasuraman.A, Zeithaml.V.A, Berry.L.L. (1988), SERVQUAL: A multiple – item scale for measuring consumer perception of service quality, Journal of retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12 – 40. 45. People's Committee of Thai Nguyen province (2015), Planning the exploitation and use of coal in Thai Nguyen province to the 2020, nguyen.gplist.124.gpopen.4377.gpside.1.quy-hoach-khai-thac-su-dung-than-tren-dia- ban-thai-nguyen-den-nam-2020.asmx. Accessed on 9/28/2015. 120 46. People's Council of Thai Nguyen province (2012), Decision No 41/2012/QĐ-UBND dated 15/11/2012 about promulgating regulations on policies of the incentive and support for investment in the province of Thai Nguyen. 47. Phan Manh Cuong (2015), Creating a new step in the development of industrial zones, Thai Nguyen journal,4829, p.4. 48. Phan Manh Cuong (2015), Sustainable development of industrial zones in Thai Nguyen province, Doctoral dissertation, Ho Chi Minh Institute of National politics, Ha Noi. 49. Phu Van Ho (2011), Total quality management approach to the information systems development processes: an empirical study, Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,Virginia. 50. Russell, James P. (1999), The Quality audit Handbook, ASQ Quality press, USA. 51. Sefrioui F. (1999), Industrial zones experience in Morocco. Journal of economic cooperation among Islamic countries 20,1, pp. 23-70 52. Sharma M., Kaur H., Jain P. (2012), A Study on Factor Influencing Satisfaction of Investors Towards Mutual Funds Industry Using Servqual Model: An Empirical Study. IJMBS ,Vol. 2, Issue 4, pp.52-56. 53. Sharma, Mehta (2004), Expectations, performance evaluation, and consumers’ perceptions of quality. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 5, pp. 18-34. 54. Smith A. (1973), Theory of Value and distribution since : Ideology and economic theory. Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom. 55. Snide J., Nailon R. (2013), Nursing staff innovations result in improved patient satisfaction, The American journal of nursing. Vol. 113, No. 10, pp. 42-50. 56. Spreng, Singh (1993), Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry using the SERVQUAL model, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 324-43. 57. Statistikian.com (2016), Durbin Watson Tabel, Accessed on 7/20/2016. 58. To Hoang Phuong (2013), Investment environmental factor affecting investor satisfaction: case study in Phu Quoc distric, Kien Giang province, Master thesis, The university of Economics of Ho Chi Minh city, Ho Chi Minh city. 59. Tu Quan Phuong, Pham Van Hung (2013), Investment Economics, National economics Publishing house, Ha Noi. 60. Thai Nguyen Department of Statistics (2015), Report on the Economy and Social of Thai Nguyen province in 2015, No. 467/BC – CTK. Dated on 11/8/2015. 121 61. Thai Nguyen industrial zone management authorities (2015), Report on the results of implementation of programs on developing the industries, handicrafts and trade villages in the period of 2011 - 2015, the direction of implementation in period of 2016 - 2020, No. 841/BC – BQL, Dated on 12/10/2015. 62. Thai Nguyen industrial zone management authorities (2016), Report on the situation of the construction and development of Thai Nguyen industrial zones in period of 2010- 2015 and orientations toward 2020, No. 48 / BC - BQL. Dated on 01/18/2016. 63. Thai Nguyen industrial zone management authorities (2016), Plan 102 / KH-BQL dated 02/02/2016 on the inspection of the implementation of the investment laws, the implementation of policies in activities of production and business, construction and environment. 64. Thai Nguyen industrial zone management authorities (2016), Plan No. 280 / KH-BQL dated 04/19/2016 on the legal supports for enterprises in the Industrial zones in 2016 65. Thai Nguyen industrial zone management authorities (2016), Plan No.312 / KH-BQL dated 04/28/2016 on the implementation of legal works in 2016. 66. Thai Nguyen industrial zone management authorities (2016), Report on the situation of employers of enterprises in industrial zones in 2015, No. 43a/BC – BQL, Dated on 01/15/2016. 67. Thai Nguyen Provincial People's Committee (2013), Decision No. 08/2013 / QD-UBND dated 06/12/2013 on promulgating the investment incentives for projects of high-tech combination of Thai Nguyen Samsung of Samsung Electronics Vietnam Thai Nguyen Co., Ltd. The project of production of microprocessors and integrated circuits of Samsung Electro - Mechanics Co., LTD and 02 high-tech projects of the 02 subsidiaries of Samsung Group in Yen Binh Industrial Zone , Thai Nguyen province 68. Trinh Viet Hung et al. (2014), Factors affecting foreign direct investment attraction - a case study of Thai Nguyen province, Journal of Sience and Technology, Vol 118, No.4, pp.185 - 190. 69. VCCI (2015), Provincial competitive index of Thai Nguyen province, accessed on 12/29/2015. 70. Vidova. J. (2010), Industrial parks – history, their present and influence on employment, Journal Review of economic Perspectives. Volume X. Issue 1,pp.41-58. 71. Vietnam's Congress (2005), Investment Law, No. 59/2005/QH11, Labour press, Ha Noi. 122 72. Vietnam's Congress (2014), Investment Law, No. 67/2014/QH13, Labour press, Ha Noi. 73. Vo Dai Luoc (2015), Industrial zones in Vietnam - current situation and problems, International Knowledge Sharing Seminar – Economic Cooperation Between Vietnam and Korea in the Post – FTA era. 2nd March 2015. Hanoi, Vietnam, pp.33-45. 74. Vo Thy Trang, Nguyen Thu Ha (2014), A research on sustainable development of industrial zones in Thai Nguyen province, Journal of Sience and Technology, Vol 121, No.7, pp.121 - 133. 75. Vu Thanh Huong (2010), Development of industrial zones in key economic zones of the north according the sustainable tend. Economic doctorate dissertation, The university of National Economics, Ha Noi. 123 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1. SUMMARY OF RELATED STUDIES No. Title and authors’name of the study Place of study Theoretical framework Methodology Research scale (number of respondents) Limitations 1 Service quality and its effect on customer satisfaction in unorganized retailing (Swati Bhargava et al., 2013) Ajmer, Rajasthan SERVQUAL (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1985) Correlation test, regression analysis 120 Only study on the customer satisfaction but not study on the investor satisfaction 2 A Study on Factor Influencing Satisfaction of Investors Towards Mutual Funds Industry Using Servqual Model: An Empirical Study(Manoj Sharma et al.,2012) Chhattisgarh State SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al, 1985) Cronbach’ s coefficient alpha test; KMO and Bartlett’s test 100 Do not study on factors affecting the investor satisfaction 3 Factors affecting investment attraction in industrial zones – quantitative model and policy implications (Dinh Phi Ho et al., 2011a) Industrial zones in Binh Phuoc province Dunning (1977), Romer & Lucas (2007) SPSS software, EFA, Regression analysis 250 The identification of analytical framework is not accurate, 5 identified factors are not convincing enough to reflect the investor satisfaction 4 "Factors affecting the satisfaction of foreign investors in the industrial zones: quantitative models and policy implications" (Dinh Phi Ho & Ha Minh Trung, 2011b) Industrial zone VN- Singapore (VSIP) in Binh Duong province Mai The Cuong, (2005), Corin & Taylor (1992), Dunning (1977), Romer & Lucas (2007), SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al, 1985) SPSS software, EFA, Regression analysis 175 - 38 observed variables in the 5 factors but these variables in the study was not overarching enough to reflect the features of the investment environment as well as the industrial zones which influence the perspectives of investors because some items belonging to the investment environment which investors always interested in, still have not been placed into the 5 factors yet. - This research is just research 124 No. Title and authors’name of the study Place of study Theoretical framework Methodology Research scale (number of respondents) Limitations on subjects who are foreign investors, but not studied on the satisfaction of investors. 5 Factors affecting foreign investor satisfaction about tax support service – a case study in Dong Nai province (Dinh Phi Ho& Nguyen Thi Bich Thuy, 2011c) Dong Nai province Kotler (2003), Gronroos, (1984), SERVQUAL (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1985) SPSS software, EFA, Regression analysis 222 Do not study on the factors affecting investor satisfaction, but just study on factors affecting the satisfaction of FDI investors about tax support services 6 Factor affecting FDI enterprise’s satisfaction: a case study of a typical research in Da Nang (Le Tuan Loc & Nguyen Thi Tuyet, 2013) Da Nang city Le Quoc Thinh (2011), Nguyen Ngoc Anh & Nguyen Thang (2007); Chidlow. A. and Young.S. (2008); Li Xinzhong (2005) SPSS software, EFA, Regression analysis 120 The influencing factors identified in this study is not convincing enough, not closely scientifically in order to reflect the satisfaction of enterprises. 7 Sustainable development of industrial zones in Thai Nguyen province (Phan Manh Cuong, 2015) Industrial zones in Thai Nguyen province Smith.A (1973) Analysis, synthesis and evaluation of secondary data This research is a qualitative research but without quantitative analysis, therefore, it did not analyzed profoundly the studied issues. as well as not proposed the breakthrough solutions. This study only focuses on aspects of sustainable development in the industrial zones in Thai Nguyen 125 No. Title and authors’name of the study Place of study Theoretical framework Methodology Research scale (number of respondents) Limitations province without research on satisfaction of investors in this area 8 A research on sustainable development of industrial zones in Thai Nguyen province (Vo Thy Trang, 2014) Industrial zones in Thai Nguyen province SWOT analysis This study did not mention about the issue of investment or investor in the industrial zones of Thai Nguyen province 9 Factors affecting foreign direct investment attraction - a case study of Thai Nguyen province (Trinh Viet Hung et al., 2014) Thai Nguyen province EFA, Regression analysis 32 The study has just aimed to analyse the factors affecting the investor attraction but not the investor satisfaction. Moreover, the space scope of this study is Thai Nguyen province but not just industrial zone of the province. 126 APPENDIX 2: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (For investors in Thai Nguyen industrial zones) We are researching a doctoral dissertation with the aim of: Analysis of factors affecting the satisfaction of investors in industrial zones in Thai Nguyen province, and on this basis, we will propose some policy recommendations to enhance the satisfaction of investors, thereby increasing the investment attractiveness, as well as attract more investors into the industrial zones in Thai Nguyen province. We cordially invite you participate to comments for the survey. We appreciate your contribution for this study. Requirements: This survey requires the honest and objective assessment from respondents. Security: The security is absolute guaranteed, questionnaires are anonymous and therefore the information relating to your enterprise will not be disclosed. Additionally, absolutely no one lost anything through your assessment, all the answers are referenced carefully to improve the investment environment in industrial zones of Thai Nguyen province as well as improve the satisfaction of investors here. Works need be done: You answer directly when receiving this survey questionnaires and please fully answer the questions below. Sincerely! SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION Mark Cross (X) in the box in the left side of the information that is appropriate with enterprises. 1. Type of enterprises: 100% of capital are foreign investment capital; Specifically : Limited liability company ; Joint stock company; General Partnerships; Others (please specify): .................................. Joint-venture company 100% of capital are domestic investment capital; Specifically : Limited liability company ; Joint stock company; General Partnerships; Others (please specify): ...................................................... 127 2. Investing country : ........................................... 3. Position of the enterprise: Outside of the industrial zone; Inside of the industrial zone; Name of the industrial zone: ...................................................................................................................... 4. Scale of the enterprise: 4.1. Scale of the investment capital Under VND 50 billion ; 50 - under VND 100 billion ; 100 - under VND 200 billion ; 200 - under VND 500 billion ; VND 500 billion and above 4.2. Scale of labors (including foreign labors) Under 200 employees; 200 - under 500 employees; 500 – under 1000 employees; 1000 employees and above 5. Fields of business: Electronics industry Exploitation industry Mechanical industry Metallurgical industry Chemical industry Industry of construction material manufacture Industry of manufacturing fuel and gas Industry of manufacturing consumer goods Industry of manufacturing medical equipments Constructions Agriculture, Forestry Fisheries Transportation, Communication Finance, Credit Services Commerce Tourism Others (please specify): 128 6. Year when the enterprise started the production and business activities?: 7. Position of the respondents in this enterprise:..................................................................... 8. The gender of the respondent:.............................................................................................. 9. The work experience of the respondent in Thai Nguyen industrial zone:...........(year) SECTION 2: THE CONTENT OF SURVEY ON THE INVESTOR SATISFACTION The following statements concerning the factors affecting your satisfaction. - Circle (O) in appropriate numbers indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. - If you circled a number already but want to change your mind, cross (X), then circle again to others. The convention on scale of agreement level 1. Strongly disagree (the statement is completely false ) 2. Disagree (the statement is false, but not completely false) 3. Neither agree nor disagree (Neither agree nor protest) 4. Agree (the statement is right, but not completely correct) 5. Strongly agree (the statement is completely right) I. MATERIAL FACILITIES OF INDUSTRIAL ZONES (TANGIBLE) 1 TAN1 Management board of industrial zones is at a convenient location, has modern and spacious facilities. 1 2 3 4 5 2 TAN2 Dress of staff of management board of industrial zones is elegant, neat 1 2 3 4 5 3 TAN3 Premises and workshops are arranged in time 1 2 3 4 5 4 TAN4 Hire charges of land and workshop are reasonable. 1 2 3 4 5 5 TAN5 Stable electricity 1 2 3 4 5 6 TAN6 Stable water 1 2 3 4 5 7 TAN7 Reasonable electricity price 1 2 3 4 5 8 TAN8 Reasonable water price 1 2 3 4 5 9 TAN9 Convenient transportation system 1 2 3 4 5 10 TAN10 Reasonable waste, wastewater fee 1 2 3 4 5 11 TAN11 Good internal transport system and green space 1 2 3 4 5 12 TAN12 Convenient communication system 1 2 3 4 5 13 TAN13 Good drainage system 1 2 3 4 5 14 TAN14 Good internal lighting system 1 2 3 4 5 129 What make you not satisfy about the industrial zones? Or What suggestions could you give the Industrial Zones management Authorities or local to improve the material facilities?................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................ II. LEVEL OF RELIABILITY ON AUTHORITIES OF INDUSTRIAL ZONES MANAGEMENT (RELIABILITY) 15 REL1 Management board of industrial zones complies with commitments with investors 1 2 3 4 5 16 REL2 Management board of industrial zones has a clear, accurate consultation 1 2 3 4 5 17 REL3 Management board of industrial zones guides administrative procedures clearly and consistently 1 2 3 4 5 18 REL4 Management board of industrial zones punctually sends its feedback about administrative procedures. 1 2 3 4 5 What should the Industrial Zones management Authorities do to increase the reliability of enterprises? ....................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... III. LEVELS OF RESPONSIVENESS OF ENTERPRISES' REQUIREMENTS (RESPONSIVENESS) 19 RES1 Management board of industrial zones is ready to assist investors 1 2 3 4 5 20 RES2 Local leaders are dynamic in supporting investors 1 2 3 4 5 21 RES3 Administrative procedures of management board of industrial zones is simple and quick 1 2 3 4 5 22 RES4 Customs procedures is simple, fast and convenient 1 2 3 4 5 23 RES5 The investment incentive policies are attractive 1 2 3 4 5 24 RES6 Legal documents are rapidly deployed to the investors 1 2 3 4 5 25 RES7 Security and order in industrial zones are good 1 2 3 4 5 26 RES8 Abundant labor 1 2 3 4 5 27 RES9 Cheap labor cost 1 2 3 4 5 28 RES10 Labor qualification meets our needs 1 2 3 4 5 29 RES11 Banking and financial service is good 1 2 3 4 5 30 RES12 Entertainment, restaurant, hotel service is satisfactory 1 2 3 4 5 31 RES13 Medical service is good 1 2 3 4 5 130 The suggestions to improve the responsiveness of enterprises' requirements: ....................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................... IV. CAPACITY, ATTITUDE IN SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES IN AUTHORITIES OF INDUSTRIAL ZONES MANAGEMENT (ASSURANCE) 32 ASS1 Qualification and serving attitude of staffs of State investment management organizations of Thai Nguyen province are good 1 2 3 4 5 33 ASS2 Qualification and serving attitude of staffs of management authorities of industrial zones are good 1 2 3 4 5 34 ASS3 Management authorities of industrial zones keeps its appointment with enterprises 1 2 3 4 5 35 ASS4 State investment management organizations of Thai Nguyen province keeps its appointment with the investors 1 2 3 4 5 The suggestions to improve the service capacity, the support attitude of the staff in Industrial Zones management Authorities and the State management organizations in Thai Nguyen province in the field of investment for enterprises: ....................................................................................................................................................... V. EMPATHY FOR ENTERPRISES (EMPATHY) 36 EMP1 Difficulties and problems of enterprises are listened and shared by Management authorities of industrial zones 1 2 3 4 5 37 EMP2 Management authorities of industrial zones takes interest in and solves recommendations and requirements of enterprises 1 2 3 4 5 38 EMP3 Management authorities of industrial zones often organize conferences to meet and talk with enterprises 1 2 3 4 5 39 EMP4 Enterprises easily meet to exchange, discuss with leaders of management authorities of industrial zones 1 2 3 4 5 What should the authorities of Industrial zones management do to increase empathy with the enterprise?....................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................... VI. THE SATISFACTION OF ENTERPRISES (LEVEL OF GENERAL SATISFACTION) 40 SAT1 In general, we feel very satisfied when investing in Thai Nguyen Industrial Zones 1 2 3 4 5 41 SAT2 We will continue to invest in long-term in Thai Nguyen Industrial Zones 1 2 3 4 5 42 SAT3 We will introduce industrial zones for other enterprises 1 2 3 4 5 131  The most dissatisfied things with Industrial Zones: ....................................................................................................................................................... The most dissatisfied things with the leadership and management at the Industrial Zones Management Authorities: ....................................................................................................................................................... The most dissatisfied things with staffs at the Industrial Zones Management Authorities: ....................................................................................................................................................... The satisfied things with industrial zones: ....................................................................................................................................................... The other suggestions to improve the quality of serve and support for enterprises and investors at Industrial Zones in the future: ....................................................................................................................................................... . Sincerely thank you for your precious collaboration! 132 APPENDIX 3 THE RESULT OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN SPSS 3.1. Test the quality of scales (Cronbach’s Alpha Test) 3.1.1. Scale “TAN” Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .820 .825 14 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item- Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted TAN1 46.81 31.261 .419 .256 .811 TAN2 47.06 31.779 .337 .235 .818 TAN3 47.23 31.473 .401 .291 .812 TAN4 47.23 32.016 .423 .305 .811 TAN5 47.39 31.891 .410 .404 .812 TAN6 46.91 30.822 .466 .248 .808 TAN7 46.71 30.838 .489 .365 .806 TAN8 47.24 31.452 .424 .456 .811 TAN9 47.23 29.022 .454 .328 .812 TAN10 47.36 30.282 .566 .415 .801 TAN11 46.73 31.237 .506 .448 .806 TAN12 46.90 31.833 .467 .376 .809 TAN13 47.29 31.067 .513 .484 .805 TAN14 46.49 31.170 .458 .369 .808 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N TAN1 3.85 .798 236 TAN2 3.60 .832 236 TAN3 3.43 .788 236 TAN4 3.43 .665 236 TAN5 3.27 .703 236 TAN6 3.75 .805 236 TAN7 3.95 .773 236 TAN8 3.42 .759 236 TAN9 3.43 1.103 236 TAN10 3.30 .765 236 TAN11 3.93 .693 236 TAN12 3.76 .643 236 TAN13 3.37 .711 236 TAN14 4.17 .760 236 133 3.1.2.Scale “REL” Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .788 .789 4 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N REL1 3.67 .740 236 REL2 3.92 .722 236 REL3 3.83 .692 236 REL4 3.83 .694 236 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item- Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted REL1 11.59 2.915 .595 .392 .737 REL2 11.33 2.980 .587 .358 .741 REL3 11.42 2.891 .678 .472 .696 REL4 11.42 3.173 .530 .335 .768 134 3.1.3. Scale “RES” 3.1.3.1.The first test Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .677 .679 13 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item- Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted RES1 40.09 21.140 .291 .259 .662 RES2 40.23 20.518 .378 .375 .650 RES3 40.81 18.998 .472 .278 .632 RES4 40.25 21.173 .234 .256 .669 RES5 40.87 19.817 .376 .370 .648 RES6 40.82 19.560 .431 .370 .640 RES7 40.90 20.347 .378 .247 .650 RES8 40.64 20.546 .335 .197 .655 RES9 41.10 18.696 .513 .460 .624 RES10 41.27 18.786 .545 .464 .621 RES11 40.81 21.928 .093 .056 .692 RES12 40.39 23.047 -.031 .044 .707 RES13 40.84 22.643 .013 .042 .702 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N RES1 3.99 .696 236 RES2 3.86 .718 236 RES3 3.28 .897 236 RES4 3.84 .788 236 RES5 3.22 .870 236 RES6 3.26 .845 236 RES7 3.19 .755 236 RES8 3.44 .773 236 RES9 2.98 .899 236 RES10 2.81 .845 236 RES11 3.28 .889 236 RES12 3.69 .830 236 RES13 3.24 .859 236 135 3.1.3.2. The last test (7th) Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .770 .769 7 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item- Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted RES3 18.91 11.293 .418 .179 .758 RES5 18.97 11.003 .495 .354 .741 RES6 18.92 10.942 .530 .361 .734 RES7 19.00 11.689 .457 .230 .749 RES8 18.74 12.143 .349 .179 .768 RES9 19.20 10.390 .590 .444 .720 RES10 19.37 10.591 .602 .449 .718 3.1.4. Scale “ASS” Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .748 .756 4 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item- Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted ASS1 10.94 3.532 .598 .450 .665 ASS2 10.89 3.780 .513 .397 .708 ASS3 11.14 3.477 .542 .339 .691 ASS4 11.25 2.963 .551 .346 .698 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N RES3 3.28 .897 236 RES5 3.22 .870 236 RES6 3.26 .845 236 RES7 3.19 .755 236 RES8 3.44 .773 236 RES9 2.98 .899 236 RES10 2.81 .845 236 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N ASS1 3.81 .712 236 ASS2 3.85 .692 236 ASS3 3.60 .774 236 ASS4 3.49 .943 236 136 3.1.5. Scale “EMP” Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .769 .769 4 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item- Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted EMP1 11.36 2.690 .578 .361 .711 EMP2 11.36 2.368 .629 .412 .680 EMP3 11.29 2.616 .535 .301 .732 EMP4 11.28 2.647 .541 .298 .728 3.1.6. Scale “SAT” Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .814 .825 3 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item- Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted SAT1 7.49 1.851 .688 .493 .743 SAT2 7.62 1.556 .707 .519 .701 SAT3 7.66 1.417 .638 .407 .795 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N EMP1 3.74 .623 236 EMP2 3.74 .714 236 EMP3 3.81 .681 236 EMP4 3.81 .665 236 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N SAT1 3.89 .592 236 SAT2 3.77 .709 236 SAT3 3.72 .812 236 137 3.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) 3.2.1. Exploratory factor analysis for independent variables 3.2.1.1. The first analysis KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .865 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 3217.852 df 528 Sig. .000 Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 9.378 28.418 28.418 9.378 28.418 28.418 4.440 13.455 13.455 2 2.629 7.966 36.385 2.629 7.966 36.385 2.887 8.748 22.203 3 1.693 5.131 41.516 1.693 5.131 41.516 2.687 8.142 30.344 4 1.632 4.947 46.462 1.632 4.947 46.462 2.549 7.725 38.069 5 1.346 4.080 50.542 1.346 4.080 50.542 2.077 6.295 44.364 6 1.288 3.904 54.446 1.288 3.904 54.446 1.905 5.771 50.135 7 1.079 3.270 57.716 1.079 3.270 57.716 1.889 5.724 55.859 8 1.048 3.176 60.891 1.048 3.176 60.891 1.661 5.032 60.891 9 .987 2.992 63.883 10 .920 2.788 66.671 11 .888 2.690 69.361 12 .826 2.504 71.865 13 .801 2.426 74.291 14 .728 2.205 76.496 15 .697 2.113 78.609 16 .671 2.034 80.643 17 .594 1.799 82.443 18 .560 1.697 84.140 19 .542 1.643 85.782 20 .474 1.438 87.220 21 .439 1.331 88.551 22 .438 1.328 89.879 23 .414 1.253 91.132 24 .406 1.231 92.363 25 .365 1.107 93.469 26 .356 1.079 94.548 27 .340 1.030 95.578 28 .302 .915 96.493 29 .282 .853 97.347 30 .269 .815 98.162 31 .230 .696 98.858 32 .209 .634 99.492 33 .168 .508 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 138 Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 REL3 .792 ASS1 .696 REL2 .692 REL1 .686 EMP2 .604 REL4 .588 ASS2 .576 EMP1 EMP4 RES5 .772 RES6 .720 RES7 RES3 RES10 RES9 TAN8 .773 TAN13 .613 ASS3 TAN10 ASS4 TAN11 .761 TAN14 .724 TAN12 .655 TAN7 .565 EMP3 .667 RES8 .624 TAN9 .703 TAN1 .627 TAN6 TAN5 .730 TAN4 .647 TAN2 .679 TAN3 .598 139 3.2.1.2. The second analysis KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .864 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 3077.084 df 496 Sig. .000 Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 9.070 28.344 28.344 9.070 28.344 28.344 4.406 13.768 13.768 2 2.624 8.199 36.542 2.624 8.199 36.542 2.872 8.976 22.745 3 1.693 5.290 41.833 1.693 5.290 41.833 2.751 8.596 31.341 4 1.616 5.051 46.884 1.616 5.051 46.884 2.491 7.784 39.125 5 1.346 4.205 51.088 1.346 4.205 51.088 1.992 6.224 45.349 6 1.233 3.855 54.943 1.233 3.855 54.943 1.946 6.081 51.430 7 1.078 3.368 58.311 1.078 3.368 58.311 1.680 5.251 56.681 8 1.048 3.275 61.586 1.048 3.275 61.586 1.570 4.905 61.586 9 .937 2.927 64.513 10 .908 2.839 67.352 11 .829 2.590 69.942 12 .824 2.575 72.517 13 .792 2.476 74.994 14 .711 2.222 77.216 15 .674 2.105 79.321 16 .617 1.929 81.250 17 .594 1.855 83.105 18 .559 1.747 84.853 19 .501 1.567 86.419 20 .473 1.478 87.897 21 .439 1.372 89.269 22 .438 1.368 90.637 23 .406 1.269 91.906 24 .376 1.174 93.080 25 .365 1.141 94.221 26 .356 1.112 95.333 27 .316 .987 96.320 28 .289 .903 97.223 29 .270 .844 98.066 30 .231 .721 98.787 31 .219 .683 99.471 32 .169 .529 100.000 140 Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 REL3 .785 ASS1 .700 REL1 .691 REL2 .689 EMP2 .625 REL4 .595 ASS2 .592 EMP1 RES5 .777 RES6 .709 RES7 RES3 RES10 RES9 TAN8 .794 TAN13 .641 TAN10 ASS3 ASS4 TAN11 .756 TAN14 .716 TAN12 .676 TAN7 TAN9 .713 TAN1 .609 TAN6 RES8 .674 EMP3 .614 TAN5 .708 TAN4 .666 TAN3 .729 TAN2 .574 141 3.2.1.3. The third analysis KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .866 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2910.727 df 465 Sig. .000 Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 8.802 28.393 28.393 8.802 28.393 28.393 4.084 13.175 13.175 2 2.515 8.113 36.506 2.515 8.113 36.506 2.762 8.910 22.085 3 1.644 5.304 41.810 1.644 5.304 41.810 2.711 8.746 30.831 4 1.613 5.203 47.012 1.613 5.203 47.012 2.460 7.935 38.766 5 1.296 4.181 51.193 1.296 4.181 51.193 2.046 6.600 45.366 6 1.233 3.978 55.171 1.233 3.978 55.171 1.822 5.876 51.242 7 1.078 3.476 58.647 1.078 3.476 58.647 1.740 5.613 56.855 8 1.026 3.309 61.957 1.026 3.309 61.957 1.582 5.102 61.957 9 .935 3.015 64.972 10 .876 2.826 67.798 11 .825 2.662 70.461 12 .808 2.608 73.068 13 .774 2.497 75.565 14 .705 2.273 77.839 15 .661 2.131 79.969 16 .616 1.987 81.956 17 .566 1.825 83.781 18 .525 1.694 85.475 19 .501 1.617 87.092 20 .471 1.520 88.612 21 .438 1.412 90.024 22 .418 1.348 91.372 23 .380 1.227 92.598 24 .368 1.186 93.784 25 .360 1.161 94.945 26 .335 1.080 96.025 27 .316 1.019 97.044 28 .278 .896 97.940 29 .236 .763 98.703 30 .224 .721 99.424 31 .179 .576 100.000 142 Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 REL3 .790 REL2 .717 REL1 .702 ASS1 .662 REL4 .583 EMP2 .579 ASS2 EMP1 RES5 .783 RES6 .713 RES7 RES10 RES3 TAN8 .790 TAN13 .630 ASS3 TAN10 ASS4 TAN11 .768 TAN14 .691 TAN12 .681 TAN7 EMP3 .718 RES8 .616 TAN9 .706 TAN1 .642 TAN6 TAN5 .728 TAN4 .674 TAN3 .710 TAN2 .628 143 3.2.1.4. The last analysis KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .831 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1874.127 df 231 Sig. .000 Communalities Initial Extraction TAN2 1.000 .501 TAN3 1.000 .707 TAN5 1.000 .547 TAN7 1.000 .628 TAN8 1.000 .746 TAN11 1.000 .720 TAN12 1.000 .621 TAN13 1.000 .689 TAN14 1.000 .616 REL1 1.000 .556 REL2 1.000 .588 REL3 1.000 .717 REL4 1.000 .598 RES5 1.000 .712 RES6 1.000 .638 RES7 1.000 .462 RES8 1.000 .619 RES10 1.000 .519 ASS1 1.000 .656 ASS2 1.000 .652 EMP2 1.000 .628 EMP3 1.000 .680 144 Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 6.224 28.292 28.292 6.224 28.292 28.292 3.799 17.270 17.270 2 2.367 10.759 39.051 2.367 10.759 39.051 2.374 10.792 28.062 3 1.578 7.174 46.225 1.578 7.174 46.225 2.296 10.434 38.496 4 1.380 6.274 52.499 1.380 6.274 52.499 2.132 9.693 48.189 5 1.173 5.330 57.829 1.173 5.330 57.829 1.664 7.566 55.755 6 1.076 4.893 62.722 1.076 4.893 62.722 1.533 6.967 62.722 7 .905 4.115 66.837 8 .801 3.641 70.479 9 .732 3.328 73.807 10 .684 3.108 76.914 11 .639 2.906 79.821 12 .602 2.738 82.559 13 .554 2.517 85.076 14 .509 2.314 87.390 15 .458 2.082 89.472 16 .423 1.925 91.397 17 .397 1.803 93.200 18 .379 1.723 94.923 19 .351 1.597 96.520 20 .295 1.342 97.863 21 .279 1.266 99.129 22 .192 .871 100.000 Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 REL3 .788 ASS1 .725 REL1 .703 REL2 .692 REL4 .676 ASS2 .650 EMP2 .588 TAN11 .800 TAN14 .727 TAN12 .692 TAN7 .600 RES5 .843 RES6 .722 RES7 .596 RES10 .551 TAN8 .828 TAN13 .740 TAN5 .676 RES8 .704 EMP3 .679 TAN3 .762 TAN2 .603 145 3.2.2. Test of EFA for the dependent variable KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .712 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 261.277 df 3 Sig. .000 Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 2.225 74.152 74.152 2.225 74.152 74.152 2 .449 14.962 89.114 3 .327 10.886 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Component Matrixa Component 1 SAT1 .869 SAT2 .882 SAT3 .832 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 1 components extracted. 146 3.3. Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA) Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 F_EMP. F_CRE. F_UND. F_TAN. F_RES. F_ABIb . Enter a. Dependent Variable: F_SAT b. All requested variables entered. Model Summaryb Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Durbin-Watson 1 .732a .536 .524 .41852 1.823 a. Predictors: (Constant). F_EMP. F_CRE. F_UND. F_TAN. F_RES. F_ABI b. Dependent Variable: F_SAT ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 46.323 6 7.721 44.077 .000b Residual 40.112 229 .175 Total 86.435 235 a. Dependent Variable: F_SAT b. Predictors: (Constant). F_EMP. F_CRE. F_UND. F_TAN. F_RES. F_ABI Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. 90.0% Confidence Interval for B Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound Tolerance VIF (Constant) .013 .261 .049 .961 -.418 .443 F_ABI .648 .066 .562 9.761 .000 .538 .758 .612 1.634 F_TAN .262 .060 .235 4.398 .000 .163 .360 .709 1.410 F_RES .089 .051 .089 1.735 .084 .004 .173 .771 1.297 F_UND .058 .053 .056 1.093 .276 -.030 .146 .774 1.291 F_CRE -.005 .047 -.005 -.098 .922 -.083 .073 .773 1.293 F_EMP -.048 .055 -.047 -.885 .377 -.138 .042 .721 1.387 a. Dependent Variable: F_SAT 147 APPENDIX 4 STATISTICAL TABLES “DURBIN – WATSON” Critical values for Durbin – Watson test : 1% Significance level n=100 to 200, K=2 to 21 n=200,210,220,...,500, K=2 to 21 n=500,550,600,...,2000, K=2 to 21 K includes intercept K includes intercept K includes intercept T K dL dU T K dL dU T K dL dU 100. 2. 1.52249 1.56213 200. 2. 1.66370 1.68362 500. 2. 1.78860 1.79658 100. 3. 1.50257 1.58265 200. 3. 1.65370 1.69372 500. 3. 1.78460 1.80060 100. 4. 1.48241 1.60370 200. 4. 1.64364 1.70396 500. 4. 1.78058 1.80463 100. 5. 1.46203 1.62527 200. 5. 1.63349 1.71431 500. 5. 1.77656 1.80868 100. 6. 1.44142 1.64735 200. 6. 1.62328 1.72478 500. 6. 1.77251 1.81276 100. 7. 1.42061 1.66994 200. 7. 1.61299 1.73538 500. 7. 1.76845 1.81684 100. 8. 1.39959 1.69302 200. 8. 1.60264 1.74608 500. 8. 1.76438 1.82094 100. 9. 1.37837 1.71660 200. 9. 1.59222 1.75691 500. 9. 1.76031 1.82507 100. 10. 1.35697 1.74066 200. 10. 1.58173 1.76786 500. 10. 1.75621 1.82921 100. 11. 1.33542 1.76519 200. 11. 1.57118 1.77893 500. 11. 1.75210 1.83337 100. 12. 1.31369 1.79019 200. 12. 1.56057 1.79011 500. 12. 1.74798 1.83754 100. 13. 1.29182 1.81563 200. 13. 1.54989 1.80141 500. 13. 1.74384 1.84174 100. 14. 1.26980 1.84153 200. 14. 1.53915 1.81282 500. 14. 1.73970 1.84595 100. 15. 1.24766 1.86785 200. 15. 1.52835 1.82434 500. 15. 1.73554 1.85019 100. 16. 1.22540 1.89460 200. 16. 1.51751 1.83598 500. 16. 1.73137 1.85443 100. 17. 1.20304 1.92176 200. 17. 1.50659 1.84772 500. 17. 1.72718 1.85870 100. 18. 1.18057 1.94932 200. 18. 1.49562 1.85957 500. 18. 1.72299 1.86298 100. 19. 1.15803 1.97725 200. 19. 1.48460 1.87153 500. 19. 1.71879 1.86729 100. 20. 1.13542 2.00557 200. 20. 1.47352 1.88360 500. 20. 1.71456 1.87160 100. 21. 1.11274 2.03425 200. 21. 1.46240 1.89577 500. 21. 1.71033 1.87594 101. 2. 1.52487 1.56413 210. 2. 1.67192 1.69089 550. 2. 1.79856 1.80582 101. 3. 1.50516 1.58445 210. 3. 1.66239 1.70050 550. 3. 1.79492 1.80946 101. 4. 1.48520 1.60527 210. 4. 1.65281 1.71024 550. 4. 1.79126 1.81312 101. 5. 1.46501 1.62661 210. 5. 1.64315 1.72007 550. 5. 1.78761 1.81680 101. 6. 1.44461 1.64845 210. 6. 1.63343 1.73003 550. 6. 1.78394 1.82049 101. 7. 1.42400 1.67078 210. 7. 1.62364 1.74009 550. 7. 1.78025 1.82420 101. 8. 1.40319 1.69361 210. 8. 1.61379 1.75026 550. 8. 1.77656 1.82793 101. 9. 1.38220 1.71691 210. 9. 1.60388 1.76053 550. 9. 1.77285 1.83167 101. 10. 1.36102 1.74068 210. 10. 1.59391 1.77091 550. 10. 1.76914 1.83542 101. 11. 1.33967 1.76492 210. 11. 1.58387 1.78140 550. 11. 1.76540 1.83919 101. 12. 1.31817 1.78962 210. 12. 1.57379 1.79199 550. 12. 1.76167 1.84297 101. 13. 1.29651 1.81476 210. 13. 1.56364 1.80268 550. 13. 1.75792 1.84676 101. 14. 1.27472 1.84034 210. 14. 1.55343 1.81348 550. 14. 1.75416 1.85058 101. 15. 1.25280 1.86634 210. 15. 1.54317 1.82438 550. 15. 1.75040 1.85441 101. 16. 1.23076 1.89275 210. 16. 1.53287 1.83538 550. 16. 1.74662 1.85824 148 n=100 to 200, K=2 to 21 n=200,210,220,...,500, K=2 to 21 n=500,550,600,...,2000, K=2 to 21 K includes intercept K includes intercept K includes intercept T K dL dU T K dL dU T K dL dU 101. 17. 1.20862 1.91957 210. 17. 1.52249 1.84648 550. 17. 1.74283 1.86210 101. 18. 1.18638 1.94678 210. 18. 1.51208 1.85769 550. 18. 1.73903 1.86597 101. 19. 1.16405 1.97437 210. 19. 1.50160 1.86898 550. 19. 1.73522 1.86985 101. 20. 1.14166 2.00232 210. 20. 1.49108 1.88038 550. 20. 1.73139 1.87376 101. 21. 1.11920 2.03064 210. 21. 1.48052 1.89187 550. 21. 1.72756 1.87766 102. 2. 1.52723 1.56611 220. 2. 1.67957 1.69767 600. 2. 1.80723 1.81390 102. 3. 1.50770 1.58621 220. 3. 1.67048 1.70685 600. 3. 1.80390 1.81723 102. 4. 1.48794 1.60682 220. 4. 1.66132 1.71613 600. 4. 1.80056 1.82059 102. 5. 1.46796 1.62793 220. 5. 1.65210 1.72550 600. 5. 1.79720 1.82396 102. 6. 1.44776 1.64953 220. 6. 1.64283 1.73498 600. 6. 1.79383 1.82734 102. 7. 1.42735 1.67162 220. 7. 1.63349 1.74456 600. 7. 1.79046 1.83073 102. 8. 1.40675 1.69418 220. 8. 1.62411 1.75423 600. 8. 1.78708 1.83414 102. 9. 1.38596 1.71722 220. 9. 1.61466 1.76401 600. 9. 1.78369 1.83755 102. 10. 1.36500 1.74072 220. 10. 1.60515 1.77387 600. 10. 1.78029 1.84098 102. 11. 1.34386 1.76468 220. 11. 1.59559 1.78383 600. 11. 1.77688 1.84443 102. 12. 1.32257 1.78909 220. 12. 1.58598 1.79389 600. 12. 1.77346 1.84788 102. 13. 1.30113 1.81393 220. 13. 1.57631 1.80405 600. 13. 1.77003 1.85134 102. 14. 1.27956 1.83919 220. 14. 1.56659 1.81430 600. 14. 1.76659 1.85483 102. 15. 1.25785 1.86487 220. 15. 1.55681 1.82464 600. 15. 1.76314 1.85832 102. 16. 1.23603 1.89097 220. 16. 1.54699 1.83507 600. 16. 1.75969 1.86183 102. 17. 1.21411 1.91745 220. 17. 1.53712 1.84560 600. 17. 1.75622 1.86534 102. 18. 1.19208 1.94432 220. 18. 1.52720 1.85622 600. 18. 1.75276 1.86887 102. 19. 1.16997 1.97156 220. 19. 1.51723 1.86692 600. 19. 1.74927 1.87241 102. 20. 1.14780 1.99917 220. 20. 1.50722 1.87772 600. 20. 1.74578 1.87596 102. 21. 1.12556 2.02712 220. 21. 1.49716 1.88860 600. 21. 1.74228 1.87953 103. 2. 1.52955 1.56805 230. 2. 1.68670 1.70402 650. 2. 1.81488 1.82103 103. 3. 1.51020 1.58795 230. 3. 1.67801 1.71280 650. 3. 1.81180 1.82411 103. 4. 1.49064 1.60835 230. 4. 1.66925 1.72166 650. 4. 1.80872 1.82721 103. 5. 1.47085 1.62924 230. 5. 1.66044 1.73062 650. 5. 1.80562 1.83032 103. 6. 1.45085 1.65061 230. 6. 1.65157 1.73967 650. 6. 1.80252 1.83343 103. 7. 1.43064 1.67246 230. 7. 1.64265 1.74880 650. 7. 1.79941 1.83656