| Course | DBAX 9104 Business Research Project Stage 4 |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 4 |
| Paper type | Findings restatement |
| Length | About 920 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DBAX 9104 Week 4
Three Hypotheses, Three Results, No Explanations Yet: Restating the Findings of a Regression Study of Franchise Unit Revenue in a Lawn Care System, Each in the Words Its Analysis Chapter Used
Student Name
Walden University
DBAX 9104: Business Research Project Stage 4
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Three Hypotheses, Three Results, No Explanations Yet: Restating the Findings of a Regression Study of Franchise Unit Revenue in a Lawn Care System, Each in the Words Its Analysis Chapter Used
Purpose of This Section
This section opens the closing chapter of my study by restating its findings as the analysis chapter reported them, in the order of the hypotheses, before any interpretation begins. The study examined annual revenue at franchised units of a regional lawn care franchise system and asked: "What is the relationship between initial owner training hours, royalty rate and territory size and annual unit revenue among franchisees of a lawn care franchise system?" The data came from the franchisor's records for 112 units that had operated for at least two full years. Appelbaum et al. (2018) ask that results be reported with their estimates and uncertainty in a form readers can check against the analysis; this section carries that standard into the closing chapter, where it is most often relaxed.
Hypothesis 1: Training Hours
The proposal stated: "Initial owner training hours predict annual unit revenue."
Result as reported in the analysis chapter: In the multiple regression model, initial owner training hours were positively and significantly related to annual unit revenue, controlling for royalty rate and territory size (B = 412, SE = 139, p = .004). Each additional hour of initial training was associated with $412 more in annual unit revenue. The null hypothesis for training hours was rejected.
Hypothesis 2: Royalty Rate
The proposal stated: "Royalty rate predicts annual unit revenue."
Result as reported in the analysis chapter: Royalty rate was negatively and significantly related to annual unit revenue, controlling for training hours and territory size (B = −18,300, SE = 8,240, p = .028). Each additional percentage point of royalty was associated with $18,300 less in annual unit revenue. The null hypothesis for royalty rate was rejected.
Hypothesis 3: Territory Size
The proposal stated: "Territory size predicts annual unit revenue."
Result as reported in the analysis chapter: Territory size, measured in thousands of households, was not significantly related to annual unit revenue once training hours and royalty rate were in the model (B = 640, SE = 750, p = .40). The 95 percent confidence interval for the coefficient ran from −845 to 2,125 dollars per thousand households. The null hypothesis for territory size was not rejected.
The territory result receives the same treatment as the other two. It is restated with its estimate and interval because Cumming (2014) argues that an interval tells a reader what values remain plausible, which a bare "not significant" hides. The interval includes zero and small positive values, so the data neither show that territory size matters nor rule out a modest effect.
The Model as a Whole
The three predictors together accounted for 21 percent of the variance in annual unit revenue (R² = .21, adjusted R² = .19, F(3, 108) = 9.57, p < .001). Assumption checks reported in the analysis chapter found no influential outliers and acceptable residual patterns.
Phrases Removed From an Earlier Draft
Table 1
Interpretive Phrases Struck From the Restatement
| Phrase in earlier draft | Why it was removed | Replacement | |
|---|---|---|
| "suggests that franchisors should increase training" | A recommendation; belongs in the recommendations section | Removed | |
| "highlights the importance of training" | Judges significance beyond what the coefficient reports | "was positively and significantly related to" | |
| "proves that lower royalties raise revenue" | A causal claim from correlational data | "was negatively and significantly related to" | |
| "because larger territories were often underserved" | An explanation not tested in the study | Removed; considered in the interpretation section | |
| "territory size does not matter" | Treats a nonsignificant result as an absent effect | Estimate and interval reported | |
| "a strong model" | Evaluative; the analysis chapter gave no such label | R² reported without adjective | |
Phrases taken from the draft dated before the chair's review in Week 3.
Why Restate at All
A reader of the closing chapter may never open the analysis chapter. If the restatement uses different words, such as "drives" where the analysis said "was related to," the closing chapter contradicts the evidence on which it rests. Michael and Combs (2008) studied franchisee failure with care to separate the factors their data could link to failure from the reasons franchisees gave, and that same separation applies here: the restatement reports what was measured and leaves reasons for later.
Order and Coverage
The results appear in the order of the hypotheses, not in order of interest. The royalty finding may be the most useful to franchisors, but moving it first would break the match between the question as asked and the answer as given. Every hypothesis receives a paragraph, including the one the data did not support.
Does the Restatement Answer the Question?
The research question asked about the relationship between three factors and unit revenue. The restatement answers it in that form: two factors were related to revenue in the expected directions, and one was not distinguishable from zero after accounting for the others. The interpretation section that follows will ask what these relationships might mean for franchisors and franchisees. Shane (1996) examined how franchising arrangements shape the growth of new franchisors, and that work, with other studies from the literature review, belongs in that next section rather than here.
Checklist Used
Before submitting, I compared every number in this section with the regression output and with the analysis chapter. All coefficients, standard errors and p values match to the decimal. No verb in this section appears that the analysis chapter did not use.
References
Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191
Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966
Michael, S. C., & Combs, J. G. (2008). Entrepreneurial failure: The case of franchisees. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2007.00232.x
Shane, S. A. (1996). Hybrid organizational arrangements and their implications for firm growth and survival: A study of new franchisors. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 216-234. https://doi.org/10.2307/256637
The Walden DBAX 9104 Week 4 instructions
For Week 4 you open your closing chapter by restating the findings before interpreting them. Quote the research question, then take each hypothesis or research question in the order the proposal set. For each, restate the result exactly as your analysis chapter reported it: direction, statistical decision, estimate and its uncertainty, in the same units and with the same verbs. Give unsupported hypotheses the same space and form as supported ones. Leave out explanations, recommendations and judgments of importance; those come in later sections. Include a short record of interpretive phrases you removed from earlier drafts and why. Close by confirming that the restatement answers the research question in the form it was asked. Two to three pages usually suffice.
Inside the DBAX 9104 Week 4 example
The sample opens with its own limit, restatement without explanation, then quotes the research question and describes the 112 units. Three short sections take the hypotheses in order: training hours (B = 412, p = .004), royalty rate (B = −18,300 per percentage point, p = .028) and territory size (B = 640, p = .40, with an interval from −845 to 2,125). The null result gets the same structure as the others, with Cumming's case for intervals. A paragraph reports the model's R² of .21. A table strikes six phrases, among them "suggests that franchisors should," "proves" and an untested explanation about underserved territories. Sections explain why restating matters, why hypothesis order is kept and how the restatement answers the question. A last check matched every number to the output.
Reading the DBAX 9104 Week 4 rubric
Graders read the restatement for leakage first. Any paragraph that explains why training related to revenue, or tells franchisors what to do, has moved into interpretation, and the week's rubric marks that as its central error. Order counts: restating results by interest rather than hypothesis order breaks the link between question and answer. The null result is checked for equal treatment, and a restatement that rushes past it signals discomfort with the finding. Reporting the interval for the unsupported hypothesis earns credit because it shows what the data leave open. The strike table is valued as evidence of self-editing. Every coefficient and p value should match the analysis chapter exactly, and graders check a sample. The confirming paragraph shows the closing chapter starts where the study began.
DBAX 9104 Week 4 help from the desk
Students usually leak interpretation through small words: highlights, suggests, demonstrates, the importance of. Search your draft for them. Then lay your analysis chapter beside your restatement and check that every verb in the restatement appears in the analysis chapter for the same result. Keep each paragraph to the same pattern so the unsupported result does not stand out as shorter or vaguer. Report the interval for a null result instead of writing that a factor does not matter. Save every explanation you deleted, since you will need them in the interpretation section. Do not reorder results to lead with your favorite. If you are unsure whether a phrase counts as interpretation, our consultants can read your restatement and mark the phrases that go beyond the analysis.
Get a DBAX 9104 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Include the Week 4 prompt and rubric, your research question and hypotheses, and the results as your analysis chapter reports them, summarized if you prefer. A restatement with its strike list returns in 24-48h, free as a first sample. Figures in it are placeholders; the ones you restate come from your own chapter.
More DBAX 9104 papers and DBA samples
- DBAX 9104 Week 1: Conclusion Match Discussion
- DBAX 9104 Week 2: Whole-Document Read Log
- DBAX 9104 Week 3: Opening Chapter Rewrite
- DBAX 9104 Week 5: Interpretation Draft
- DBAX 9104 Week 6: Limitations Section
- DBAX 9104 Week 7: Conclusion Sizing Paper
- DBAX 9104 Week 8: Contribution Sentence Drafts
- DBAX 9104 Week 9: One-Page Summary
- DBAX 9104 Week 10: Defense Rehearsal
- DBAX 9104 Week 11: Final Assembly Record
- DBAX 9103C Week 4: Anonymization Note
- DBAX 9103 Week 4: Data Preparation Note
- DBAX 9102C Week 4: Internal Records Appraisal
- DBAX 9102 Week 4: Literature Disagreement Analysis
DBAX 9104 Week 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DBAX 9104 Week 4 sample paper?
You will find the Week 4 restatement further down, all three hypotheses and the struck-phrase table included, with no charge to read it.
What does the DBAX 9104 Week 4 restatement report?
Training hours related positively and royalty rate negatively to unit revenue, while territory size was not distinguishable from zero.
Why is the territory result given an interval?
An interval shows which effect sizes remain plausible, which a bare statement of nonsignificance hides.
What phrases were removed from the draft?
Six, including a recommendation to franchisors, a causal "proves," an untested explanation and an evaluative "strong model."
Why keep the hypotheses in their original order?
Reordering by interest would break the match between the question as asked and the answer given.