Table 1

Frequency and percentage distribution of the socio-demographic profiles of the Grade 12

HUMSS students
Study Variables Frequency (n=155) Percentage
Age
15-16 years old 22 14.2
17-18 years old 121 78.1
19 ≥years old 12 7.7
Sex
Male 84 54.2
Female 71 45.8
Marital Status of Parents
Single-Parent 37 23.9
Widow/Widower 20 12.0
Separated 33 21.3
Married Living Together 56 36.1
Both Parents are Deceased 9 5.8
Family Monthly Income
Poor 95 61.3
Low-income 54 34.8
Lower-middle income 6 3.9
Educational Attainment of the Father
Elementary Graduate 43 27.7
High School Graduate 96 61.9
College Graduate 16 10.3
Educational Attainment of the Mother
Elementary Graduate 68 43.9
High School Graduate 82 52.9
College Graduate 5 3.2
Family Size
Small (3-4 members) 52 33.5
Medium (5-6 members) 75 48.4
How Large
to present
(19 ≥results for FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE
members) 28 of DEMOGRAPHIC18.1 PROFILES?

There were 155 students who participated in the study whose age range was from 15-19
years old. Majority were 17-18 years old (78.1%). Males (78.1%) were higher compared to
females (45.8%).
How to present results for FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE of DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES?

Table 1
Descriptive analysis of the demographic profiles of the respondents
Study Variables Frequency Percentage In
(n=35)
Sex
Female 35 100
Male 0 0
Marital Status
Single 1 2.9
Married 30 85.7
Widowed 4 11.4
Salary Grade
SG10-SG11 7 20
SG12-SG13 25 71.43
SG14-SG15
SG16-SG17
SG18-SG19 2 5.7
SG20-SG21 1 2.8
Family Monthly Income
Low-income (P 12, 082 and P 24, 164.00) 6 17.1
Lower middle: P 24, 164.00 and P 48, 328.00 22 62.9
Middle: P 48, 328.00 and P 84, 574.00 6 17.1
Upper Middle: P 84, 574.00 and P 144, 984.00 1 2.9
Other Sources of Income
None 26 74.3
Spouses’ Salary 3 8.5
Business 2 5.7
Tricycle driving 1 2.8
Tutorial 2 5.7
Farming 1 2.8
table 1, it shows that there were 35 respondents in this study who are teaching and non-teaching
personnels of Sorosoro Elementary School. All of them are female, mostly married (85.7%), and
receiving a salary grade of mostly Salary Grade 12-Salary Grade 13 at P 27, 000.00-P 31, 232.00
(71.43%). In terms of family monthly income, a majority falls in the lower-middle income
earners (62.9%) while a significant number belongs to the low-income bracket (17.1%) and
middle-income earners (17.1%). When asked about their other sources, majority of the
respondents had no sources of income (74.3%) while other have signified they have their
spouses’ salary as source (8.5%), business (5.7%), tutorial (5.7%), and farming and driving at
2.8% respectively.
How to present results for FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE FOR CLUSTERED VARIABLES?

Table 1.
The distribution of student’s anxiety using GAD-7 questionnaire
Nominal Descriptors Frequency Percentage
Mild Anxiety 2 1.3
Moderate Anxiety 107 69
Severe Anxiety 46 29.7

Table 2 shows the distribution of student’s anxiety. There were 107 students who were
having moderate anxiety (69%), severe anxiety (29.7%), and mild anxiety (1.3%).

Table 2.
The distribution of student’s depression using PHQ-9 questionnaire

Nominal Descriptors Frequency Percentage

Mild Depression 23 14.8
Moderate Depression 118 76.1
Severe Depression 14 9

Table 3 shows the distribution of student’s depression. There were 76.1% of the students who
were experiencing moderate depression, 14.8% mild depression, and 9% severe depression.
How to present results for MEANS and CLUSTERED MEAN of
indicators of a variable?

Table 2
Means and descriptors on the indicators of financial knowledge
Indicators Means Descriptors
1. I learned the importance of savings. 3.80 Strongly Agree
2. I have a good knowledge on investment especially about stocks, 3.14 Agree
bonds, and mutual funds.
3. I have the ability to create and stick to personal budget. 3.37 Strongly Agree
4. I know the basic financial concepts like interest rates, inflation, 3.37 Strongly Agree
and compounding interests.
5. I am aware of my ability to manage and reduce debts and loans. 3.43 Strongly Agree
6. I understand basic tax concepts and how they apply to my 3.37 Strongly Agree
finances.
7. I am aware of my consumer rights and responsibilities in 3.43 Strongly Agree
financial transactions.
8. I am aware of economic trends and potential impact on personal 3.34 Strongly Agree
finances.
9. I can evaluate my financial resources and utilize it efficiently to 3.46 Strongly Agree
avoid unnecessary expenses.
10. I can manage financial stress and cope with challenging 3.29 Strongly Agree
situations.
Cluster Mean 3.4 Strongly Agree

Table 2 shows the means and descriptors on the indicators of financial knowledge. The
respondents indicated strong agreement in terms of savings (3.8) and evaluation of financial
resources to avoid unnecessary expenses (3.46). However, they agree to know about investment
especially about stocks, bonds, and mutual funds (3.14), the lowest among all the indicators in
terms of financial knowledge.

Table 3
Means and descriptors on the indicators of financial behavior
Indicators Means Descriptors
1. I subscribe to government and private financial assistance 3.09 Agree
programs.
2. I keep a monthly household account for my basic needs. 3.43 Strongly Agree
3. I usually consult financial advisors or consultants. 2.57 Agree
4. I regularly save a portion of my salary and income. 3.17 Agree
5. I have the habit of investing. 2.89 Disagree
6. I prioritize household needs prior to spending on new clothes and 3.51 Strongly Agree
gadgets.
7. I usually prefer buying cheaper but quality products. 3.60 Strongly Agree
8. I have savings account. 3.34 Strongly Agree
9. I have a well-defined financial plan for the future. 3.17 Agree
10. I closely monitor my financial affairs. 3.26 Strongly Agree
Cluster Mean 3.20 Agree
 Table 3 shows the means and descriptors on the indicators of financial behavior. The
respondents indicated strong agreement in terms of preferring to buy cheaper but quality
products (3.6), prioritizing needs at home over new clothes and gadgets (3.51), and keeping
monthly account for basic needs (3.43). However, the respondents disagreed in when asked
whether they consult financial advisors or consultants (2.57) and disagreed when asked whether
How to present results of CLUSTERED MEANS of variables?
they are investing (2.89).

Table 6
Means and nominal description of the factors of quiet quitting
Variables Cluster Means Nominal Description
Motivation 1.67 Strongly Disagree
Work Environment 1.89 Disagree
Salary Satisfaction 2.04 Disagree
Growth and Advancement 1.75 Disagree
Perceived Level of Experience 1.84 Strongly Disagree
Legend: 1.-1.75=Strongly Disagree; 1.75-2.5=Disagree, 2.51-3.25-Agree, 3.26-4=Strongly Agree

Table 6 shows the means and nominal descriptors of the variables of quiet quitting.
Disagreement was accorded to work environment (1.89) and salary satisfaction (2.04) while
strong disagreement in growth and advancement (1.75) and motivation (1.68). The restaurant
employee-respondents had an over-all perceived level of experience of 1.84, “Strongly Disagree”
on the factors of quiet quitting.
 How to present results for t-Test Independent?
(Significant difference between two groups_

Table 2

Significant difference between the mean temperature detected by the Smart

Classroom-Environment Monitoring System and a Thermometer

p- Interpretation
Mea
Low Level SD t(110) valu
n
e

Smart Classroom- 33.0 .756 Difference is Not

Environment Monitoring 0 Significant
System -
.744
1.000
Thermometer 33.2 .704
7

The results in Table 2 indicate that there is no significant difference between

the mean temperature detected by the Smart Classroom Environment Monitoring
System and a standard thermometer. Using Independent-samples T-test, the mean
temperature recorded by the Smart Classroom System is 33.00°C with a standard
deviation of 0.756, while the thermometer's mean is slightly higher at 33.27°C with
a standard deviation of 0.704. The t-test value of -1.000 and a p-value of 0.744
(greater than the significance threshold of 0.05) confirm that the observed
difference between the two means is not statistically significant, suggesting that
both devices perform similarly in temperature detection.
 How to present results for ANOVA?

Table 1

Significant difference between phone addiction and age

Group Age Mean SD Df F p

16 2.71 .40 3, 36 .673 .574

17 2.68 .38

18 2.50 .14

19 2.20 -

Descriptive statistics show that the mean of phone addiction of 16 years old respondents
is 2.71, 17 years old is 2.68, 18 years old is 2.50, and 19 years old is 2.20. The table shows that
the F-value between groups is .673, and p=value is .574, which is greater than .05. The degrees
of freedom (df) between groups is 3 and within groups is 36. Since the p-value is greater
than .05, the null hypothesis is accepted stating that there is no significant difference between
age and phone addiction.
One way Analysis of Variance was performed to determine the difference between phone
addiction and age groups of the respondents. Results show that the age of the respondents had no
significant effect to their phone addiction, F( 3, 36)=.673, p>.05. The phone addiction of those 16
(2.71), 17 (2.68), 18 (2.50), and 19 (2.20) years old respondents are equal. Therefore, this
implies that phone addiction does not differ among these age groups.
 Table 1

Significant difference between romantic competence and family size

Group Mean SD Df F p

Small 2.72 .24 3, 36 .673 .023

Medium 2.64 .37

Large 2.76 .18

Very Large 3.06 .31

Descriptive statistics show that the mean of romantic competence of small families is
2.72, medium is 2.64, large is 2.76, and very large is 3.6. The table shows that the F-value
between groups is .673, and p=value is .023, which is less than .05. The df between groups is 3
and within groups is 36. Since the p-value is less than .05, the null hypothesis is rejected and the
alternative hypothesis is accepted stating that there is significant difference between romantic
competence and family size.
One-way Analysis of Variance was performed to determine the difference between
romantic competence and family size of the respondents. Results show that the family size of the
respondents had significant effect to their romantic competence, F( 3, 36)=.673, p<.05. Post hoc
analysis was performed to determine which group differ in terms of romantic competence.
Respondents from very large family have the highest romantic competence compared from
those from the small, medium, and large families. Those respondents from small, medium,
and large families are statistically equal. The romantic competence of those in the very
large families are higher (3.06) than those who are in small (2.72), medium (2.64), and large
(2.76). Therefore, this implies that romantic competence differ among these respondents in
terms of family size.
 How to present results for MANOVA?

Table 1

Significant difference between test scores according to gender

Gender English Math Science

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Male (n=62) 76.21 .40 85.56 7.63 78.44 6.25

Female (n=58) 76.36 .38 75.45 7.86 82.97 8.87

Total= 120 76.28 .14 80.68 9.23 80.63 7.93

F .006 51.159 10.564

P .939 .000 .002

Descriptive statistics show the means and standard deviations in English, Math, and
Science scores according to gender. To examine the significant difference between test scores, a
Multivariate Analysis of Variance was conducted with gender as the independent variable and
the three subjects as the dependent variables. Wilk’s lambda showed a significant difference for
the multivariate main effect, F(5, 24)=.668, p>.001.
Follow-up univariate tests showed that the main effects of gender is significant in Math,
F(1, 24)=1.289, p>.05, indicating that males (Mean 85.56, SD=7.63) scored significantly higher
than females (Mean=75.45, SD=7.86). The main effect of gender to Science is significant, F (1,
118)=10.564, p>.05, where females (Mean=82.97, SD=8.87) scored higher than males
(Mean=78.44, SD=6.25). The effect of gender to English scores is not significant F (1,
118)=.006, .05.
 How to present results for Pearson R Correlation?

Table 12
Relationship of conventional personality traits and productivity
Conventional Productivity
Pearson Correlation 1 .704**
Conventional Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 150 150
Pearson Correlation .704** 1
Productivity Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 150 150
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Pearson product – moment correlation was run to determine the relationship between
conventional personality traits and productivity. Table 12 presents the Pearson coefficient, its
significance value and the sample size from which the calculation is based on. The Pearson
correlation coefficient, r, is .704, and that is statistically significant (Sig. (2-tailed) with p
= .000). Results show that conventional personality traits and productivity are positively related
(r = .704, p < 0.01), indicating that employees with high agreement on the conventional
personality traits have high assessment on its impact to productivity.

Table 11
Relationship of social personality traits and professional development factors and
productivity
Social Productivity
Pearson Correlation 1 .603**
Social Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 150 150
*
Pearson Correlation .603 1
Productivity Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 150 150
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Pearson product – moment correlation was run to determine the relationship between
social personality traits and professional development factors and productivity. Table 11 presents
the Pearson coefficient, its significance value and the sample size from which the calculation is
based on. The Pearson correlation coefficient, r, is .603, and that is statistically significant (Sig.
(2-tailed) with p = .000). Results show that social personality traits and professional
development factors and productivity are positively related (r = .603, p < .001), indicating that
employees with high agreement on the social personality traits and professional development
factors and have high assessment on its impact to productivity.