You are on page 1of 11




This chapter briefly presents the different methods and procedures used by the

researcher in doing his investigation. It consists of the research design, the research

locale, and the subjects. It also includes the instruments used in the collection and

gathering of data, as well as the statistical tools used in processing and analyzing the data.

Research Method

This study utilized the descriptive correlational design. Sanchez (1998) stated

that descriptive research includes all studies that purport to present facts concerning the

nature and status of anything – a group of persons, a number of objects, a set of

conditions, a class of events, a system of thought or any other kind of phenomena which

one may wish to study. In this study, the nature and status of the Medical Technology

graduates were determined.

The study also employed a correlational design in order to determine the extent to

which the different variables are related to each other in the population of interest.

Through this method, the researcher was able to ascertain how much variation is caused

by each of the independent variables to the dependent variable. The magnitude and

direction of the relationship was determined and was used for further computations to

predict the value of the dependent variable.

The impact of the academic, clinical and seminar ratings, as independent

variables, on the dependent variable, board examination performance of the Medical

Technology graduates, was measured and the formers’ predictive value determined.

Subjects and Locale of the Study

The subjects of the study were the medical technology graduates of Angeles

University Foundation who graduated from 1995 – 2000. Each of the subjects should

have taken the licensure examination on the same year as their graduation, that is, they

should have graduated March and have taken the board examination on September of the

year they graduated regardless of whether the former passed or not. All graduates who

have re-enrolled a failed subject from a school other than Angeles University Foundation

were disqualified. There were a total of one hundred sixty nine (169) medical technology

graduates who were considered in the study.

The study was conducted at Angeles University Foundation particularly at the

Dean’s Office of College of Allied Medical Professions, the Office of the University

Registrar and at the Records Section of the Professional Regulation Commission,

Morayta, Manila.

The College of Allied Medical Professions opened its doors to the first batch of

students for both Medical Technology and Physical Therapy on June 1990 and has since

been in the pursuit of academic excellence. The academic programs cited were given the

stamp of approval by the Professional Regulation Commission and were later granted

government recognition on June 15, 1992 and August 25, 1993 respectively.

At present the two courses are recognized by the Professional Regulation

Commission as the college ranked 3rd among 68 schools offering Medical Technology 8th

out of 112 schools which offer Physical Therapy.


Research Instruments

The researcher gathered data by examining, verifying and analyzing the grading

sheets from the College of Allied Medical Professions and of the Registrar’s Office. The

official printout of the board examination performance of the medical technology

graduates had also undergone the same process.

Upon approval of the request letter, the researcher gathered the grading sheets of

the following subjects: Clinical Chemistry 1 & 2, Microbiology, Parasitology,

Hematology, Serology, Blood Banking, Histopathology, and Medical Technology Laws

and Ethics. The

A data matrix table was prepared to encode all the data needed in the study. The

data matrix was used together with a data-coding manual. The data encoded on the

matrix table included the year the students graduated, their names, academic ratings in

the different subject areas, their internship grades, seminar grades, and board examination

performance which is inclusive of all ratings per subject taken and the general weighted


Data Collection

The initial phase of the study was the gathering of data pertaining to the medical

technology graduates of Angeles University Foundation, College of Allied Medical

Professions from academic year 1995 – 2000. A letter was sent to the Dean of CAMP to

seek permission to review the records of the 1995 to 2000 graduates. The researcher

likewise requested for an endorsement letter to be presented to the Professional regulation

Commission and to the Registrar so that records of the medical technology graduates’

board examination performance as well as the academic, clinical and seminar ratings can

be availed of respectively.

An endorsement letter from the Dean of CAMP presented to the Registrar enabled

the researcher to access the grading sheets of the subjects for their grades in the different

Medical Technology subject areas. Comparison was made between the data obtained

from the Registrar’s Office and CAMP.

For the medical technology graduates’ board examination ratings, the researcher

presented the endorsement letter of the Dean of CAMP to the section chief of the

Educational Task Force of the Professional Regulation Commission. All data collected

were encoded using a data matrix table prepared by the researcher.

Data Processing and Analysis

A. The data gathered were tallied, tabulated, analyzed and interpreted. The data for the

academic, clinical and seminar ratings were grouped based on the following (CAMP

Bulletin 2000):

97 – Excellent
91 – 96 – Very Good
82 – 90 – Good
77 – 81 – Satisfactory
75 – 76 – Passed
below 75 – Failed

To analyze and describe the data obtained, the researcher made use of a computer

program called Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 9.05). The

statistical tools that were employed are as follows:


1. Frequency Distribution

A frequency distribution is a grouping of data into categories showing the

number of observations in each category (Utzurrum, 1997). This statistical tool

was employed to describe the board examination ratings and scores in each of the

subject areas given during the licensure examination which includes Clinical

Chemistry, Microbiology-Parasitology, Hematology, Serology-Blood Banking,

and Histopathology-Medical Technology Laws and Ethics. The academic and

clinical ratings were not described using this statistical tool since the CAMP

Bulletin provided the categories for classification of the data.

2. Percentage Distribution

Percentage distribution was used in the analysis of frequency distribution

data. This statistical tool characterized all variables under study, which includes

the academic, clinical, and seminar ratings as well as the board examination

performance of the subjects. The percentage distribution is computed by dividing

the number of responses by the total number of responses multiplied by 100.

The formula for percentage is as follows:

%= number of responses X 100

total number of respondents

3. Mean

Mean is defined as a measure of central tendency wherein it is the point on

the score scale which is equal to the sum of scores divided by the number of

respondents (Cassens, 1987). Subjected to these tests were the academic, seminar

and clinical ratings as well as the board examination performance of the Medical

Technology graduates.

The mean, for grouped data, may be computed as (Downie, 1983):

X = Σ Xifi

X = mean
Xi = midpoint
fi = frequency
N = number of cases

3. Standard Deviation

The standard deviation is the positive square root of the variance (Reyes,

1996). It is the most useful measure of dispersion (Cassens, 1987) and was used

to describe the variation and scatter of values of the variables academic, clinical,

and seminar ratings. This statistical tool also described the degree of dispersion

of the board examination ratings.

The standard deviation for grouped data was determined as (Downie,


2 2
s= NΣ X – (Σ X)
√ N (N-1)


s = standard deviation
N = number of cases
X = value for the observation
Σ = summation symbol

B. To test the null hypothesis, the following inferential statistics were employed:

1. Pearson r

To determine the relationship between two quantitative variables, the Pearson

Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was used. The relationship between

each of the following variables and the board examination ratings were

determined using this statistical tool.

A. Academic Ratings

B. Seminar Ratings

C. Clinical Ratings


NΣ XY – (Σ X) (Σ Y)

r= √ [NΣ X2 – (Σ X)2] [NΣ Y2 - Σ Y)2]

N = number of cases or observations

X = value of the independent or predictor variable

Y = value of the dependent or criterion variable

r = Pearson product moment correlation coefficient

The Guilford Coefficient values were used to determine the degree of

relationship between the variables as reflected by the Pearson r correlation

coefficient. The coefficient values and interpretation are as follows:


Value Interpretation

0 No correlation

0.21 – 0.40 - Weak or low correlation

0.41 – 0.60 - Moderate correlation

0.61 – 0.80 Strong or high correlation

0.81 – 0.99 - Very strong or very high correlation

1.0 - Perfect relationship

After the correlation coefficients are computed, the algebraic signs, either

positive or negative, were interpreted as follows:

(+) = Direct relationship which indicates a parallel increase or decrease in values.

The variables follow the same rhythm or direction of movements.

(-) = Inverse relationship where the variables move in opposite direction. When

one increases in value, the other variable decreases.

2. Predictive Value

The predictive value is defined as the variation caused by the independent

variables, on the board examination performance. It is computed getting the

squared value of the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient and

multiplying it by 100.

The formula is as follows:

Predictive value = r x 100

3. Linear Regression Analysis.

This is a statistical tool employed in order to discover the effect of one

variable on another variable (Parel, 1986).

The test also performs correlational analysis (Pearson r) and is similar to

simple correlational analysis, but whilst correlation analysis allows us to conclude

how strongly two variables relate to each other (both magnitude and direction),

linear regression will answer the question by how much will y (dependent

variable) change, if x (predictor or independent variable) changes. Linear

regression gives a measure of the effect x has on y, or it allows the researcher to

predict y from x (Dancey, 1999).

When linear regression analysis is performed, a regression equation is

obtained, which shows the way in which y changes as a result of change in x. The

general formula is as follows (Dancey, 1999):

Y = a + bx

where: Y = is the variable to be predicted

x = is the score on the variable x

b = is the value for the slope of the line

a = is the value of the constant or intercept

The value for the intercept or constant, which is a, may be computed as follows
(Reyes, 1996):

a = X – bY


a = value for the constant or intercept and makes the mean of the
actual or observed values equal to the predicted values of Y

b = value for the slope of the line and indicates the amount of
change in Y per unit change in X.

X = mean of the observation for the predictor variable

Y = mean of the observation for the dependent variable

The value for b was determined as:

b= nΣ XY - Σ XΣ Y
2 2
nΣ X – (Σ X)


b = value for the slope of the line

n = total number of observations or cases

X = observation or values for the predictor variable

Y = observation or values for the dependent variable

4. Multiple Regression.

Multiple regression is an extension of linear regression. In order to

discover the ways in which several variables (called independent or predictor

variables) are related to another (called the dependent or criterion variable), this

method is made use of. This technique is able to give information on the ways in

which the independent variables combined relate to the dependent variable, and

how each of the variables relate to the dependent variable, separately (Dancey,


The regression equation is just an extension of the linear regression and is

as follows:

y = a + b1x1 + b2x2 + b3x3

where: y is the variable to be predicted

x1 is the score on the variable x1

x2 is the score on the variable x2

x3 is the score on the variable x3

b is the value for the slope of the line

a is the value of the constant or intercept

The independent variables academic, clinical and seminar ratings were the

predictor variables and board examination rating as the dependent or criterion


Upon measurement of the significance of the result, the following basis

was used to determine the rejection or acceptance of the null hypotheses. This

basis was used in all of the hypotheses formulated in this study.

Rejection of null hypothesis – reject the null hypothesis if the computed

significance level is lower than 0.05. (Dancey, 1999)

Acceptance of the null hypothesis – accept the null hypothesis if the

computed significance level is higher than 0. 05. (Dancey, 1999)