This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

DIZON, RN CSU-MPH BIOSTATISTICS FREQUENCY TABLES Frequency of the Recorded Age of Respondents Frequency Valid 20 and below 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-76 Total 11 105 68 33 15 5 237 Percent Valid Percent 4.6 44.3 28.7 13.9 6.3 2.1 100.0 4.6 44.3 28.7 13.9 6.3 2.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4.6 48.9 77.6 91.6 97.9 100.0

Most of the respondents are from 21 to 29 years old, it only implies that most of the respondents belong to younger group, and it supports the fact that most of the work force belong to this group. This is followed by the 30 to 39 age group which is 28.7% of the respondents while each of the other age groups has less than 10% of the respondents. Frequency of the Sex of Respondents Frequency Percent Valid Percent Valid male female Total 93 144 237 39.2 60.8 100.0 39.2 60.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 39.2 100.0

The table shows that there is higher percentage of female respondents which is 60.8 % compared to males which is 39.2 %. The ratio of male to female in the study is about 4:6, for every four male there are six female respondents. This means that there are more female than male respondent.

The 22. are middle level employee of an agency.4 93.4 71.4 100.8 11.0 Based on the result shown in this table.3 6.4 100.0 22.4 % or about one fifth of the respondents have low income.8 88.0 Cumulative Percent 22.4 % have doctorate degree. these include the minimum wage worker in a company.Frequency of the Educational Attainment of Respondents Frequency Percent Valid Percent Valid BS MASTERS PhD Total 137 73 27 237 57.3 % have high level income probably occupying the administrative position. Frequency of the Income Level of the Respondents.6 100.8 %. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Valid LOW AVERAGE HIGH Total 53 169 15 237 22.8 30. Then 30.3 100.8 % of the respondents have master’s degree.8 11.0 More than half of the respondents has bachelor’s degree which is 57.3 6. while 11.7 100.3 % which means that most of the respondents belong to those with stable job and.0 57.4 71.0 Cumulative Percent 57.3 100.8 30. While 6. This is because the largest portion of the group or respondents belong to ages 21-29 in which they belong to those who just finish their bachelor’s degree or currently enrolled with their master’s degree and probably don’t have time to finish their doctorate degree. most of the respondent belongs to the average earning population with 71. .

0 Cumulative Percent 1. Frequency of the Self-confidence Level of the Respondents Frequency Percent Valid Percent Valid LOW MODERATE HIGH Total 3 166 68 237 1.3 71.8 %.0 Table shows that.0 1.0 28. majority of the respondents possess a moderate selfesteem level about 64. 7 % are with high level of self confidence these respondents are those given with high regards and greatly supported by their respective families.0 Most of the respondents have moderate self-confidence with 70%.Frequency of the Self-esteem Level of the respondents Frequency Percent Valid Percent Valid LOW MODERATE HIGH Total 4 153 80 237 1.3 70.0 28.7 64.7 64.8 100. one third or about 33. while 28.0 1. while 1.6 33.7 66.8 100.3 70.6 33. .2 100.7 % have low self-esteem level.0 Cumulative Percent 1.3 100.7 100.6 %.7 100.

2 57.2 100.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 41.0 42.8 100. almost one sixth of the respondents are with awards and are without awards.5 15.0 .0 As shown on the table.8 58.0 Cumulative Percent 1.8 100.8 58.0 Cumulative Percent 42.5 % of the respondents have average IQ level. Frequency of Elementary the Awards Received by the Respondents in Frequency Percent Valid Percent Valid WITHOUT AWARDS WITH AWARDS Total 100 137 237 42.3 % have below average IQ level.2 100.0 41. so the ratio is 6:4 Frequency of the Awards Received by the Respondents in Secondary Frequency Percent Valid Percent Valid WITHOUT AWARDS WITH AWARDS Total 99 138 237 41.0 The table shows that 83.Frequency of the IQ Level of the Respondents Frequency Percent Valid Percent Valid BELOW AVERAGE AVERAGE ABOVE AVERAGE Total 3 198 36 237 1.8 100.3 83.2 100.2 100. 15.3 84.5 15.2 57.3 83.2 100.0 1.2 % posses above average IQ level and 1.

Based on the table.9 48.8 53.0 3.0 34.8 % are without award.0 Total 237 100.8 49.6 62. the level of expectation one gives to himself in life is greatly influenced by his personal .6 62.0 Based on the table.8 100.6 100.0 There are 49.4 % have much expectation in life.0 34.8 49.0 Cumulative Percent 3.9 48. Frequency of the Awards Received by the Respondents in College Frequency Percent Valid Percent Valid WITHOUT AWARDS WITH AWARDS Total 123 114 237 51.4 46.4 Cumulative Percent 3.8 % have high level of motivation and the rest have low level of motivation.0 37.9 100.2 100. 62.0 As shown in the table. 58. while 46.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 51.0 51.1 100.4 % of the respondents have moderate level of motivation. Frequency of the Motivational Level of the Respondents Frequency Valid LOW MODERATE HIGH Total 9 117 111 237 Percent Valid Percent 3.2 % of the respondents have awards in high school and 41.4 3. Frequency of the Expectation in Life of the Respondents Frequency Valid LITTLE NOT MUCH MUCH 7 82 148 Percent Valid Percent 3.8 100. almost all of the respondents have equal distribution with and without award.0 100.4 46.

4 76.489 .3 22.315 .768 14.395 self efficacy 237 54 score Valid N (listwise) 237 .4 3 Statisti Std. three fourth of the respondents received high level of trust from their family.158 1.6% of the respondents view themselves to achieve just enough to expect not much from themselves and 3% respondents do not think they have achieve enough and expects a little in life. m m n Deviation Statistic 10. Descriptive Statistics Mini Maxi mu mu Mea Std. While 34.3 23. Frequency of the Level of Trust that the Family Members of the Respondents are giving them.3 22.3 9 96. and while one fourth receives moderate level of trust from their family.0 The table shows that.120 N Skewness Kurtosis Std.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 1.4 100. Error . The trust that the family gives you depends on your sense of responsibility.039 -. Statist c Error ic 1.4 100.115 -.158 .view of his strengths and weaknesses.4 76.315 Stat Stati Stati Stati istic stic stic stic Age 237 17 76 123 32. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Valid LOW MODERATE HIGH Total 3 53 181 237 1. Descriptives Table 1.0 1. This may be based on the achievements they attained.

Since the standard deviation is small. Kurtusis The kurtosis value for the age of the respondents is 1.39. suggesting that the group members are homogenous (they have almost the same age).120 which mean that the person with an average self-efficacy on the data set is 14. This means that the distribution of the self-efficacy score of the respondents is negatively skewed (skewed to the left) and that the most frequent self-efficacy scores are the high ones while there are only few low scores. Since the standard deviation is small.768 away from the mean age of 32. This means that the distribution of the age of the .039 which is greater than 0. SK for the self-efficacy score of the respondents is -0.115 which is a positive value. this means that there is a narrow spread of scores from the mean.768 which means that the age of the respondents in the data set is 10. The standard deviation for the self-efficacy score of the respondents is 14.486 which is a negative value.120 away from the mean self-efficacy score of 96. Skewness SK for the age of the respondents is 1. This means that the distribution of the age of the respondents is positively skewed (skewed to the right) and that most of the respondents belong to the lower age group and only a few belong to the higher age group. it indicates that that most of the self-efficacy scores are centered around the mean self-efficacy score which suggests that the respondents have almost the same selfefficacy scores (homogenous).Standard Deviation The standard deviation for the age of the respondents is 10.43.

395 which is less than 0. . This means that the distribution of the selfefficacy scores of the respondents has a comparatively flattened distribution (platykurtic) wherein few of the self-efficacy scores are in the central idea of the curve. he stated that “expectations of personal efficacy are derived form 4 principal sources of information: performance accomplishments. vicarious experiences.respondents have a comparatively peaked distribution (leptokurtic) wherein most of the age of the respondents is in the central area of the curve. According to Schwarzer (1994). general self-efficacy aims at a broad and stable sense of personal competence to deal effectively with a variety of stressful situations. Statement of Hypothesis Ho: Age does not affect the self-efficacy scores of the respondents. The older the person is. the more they have a stable personal competence to deal effectively with various stressful situations. This means that the older the person. In the proposed model of Bandura which is self efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Ha: Age affects the self-efficacy score of the respondents. The kurtosis value for the self-efficacy score of the respondents is -0. This reveals that older people have already encountered many experiences and accomplishments in life. Decision: Reject Ho Interpretation: Age affects the self-efficacy scores of the respondents. the lower the self-efficacy score. verbal persuasion and physiological states”. The younger the person is. hence they have a higher self-efficacy score. the higher the self efficacy score.

. MALE FEMALE 93.01 –REJECT Ho *SIGNIFICANT @ 0. Females have significantly higher mean self-efficacy score (98.83). task-oriented and independent. and Letarte (1992).274 Prob/sig.efficacy of male and female respondents. Instrumental characteristics include being goal-directed. This seems to confirm the findings of Chusmir. while those in traditional fields have reported expressive characteristics.024** **SIGNIFICANT @ 0. They maintained that women who have pursued non-traditional fields have reported higher levels of instrumental characteristics.687 0.Table 2.NOT SIGNIFICANT – ACCEPT Ho Ho: There is no difference between self efficacy of male and female respondents. (1983).83 98. Let ᾳ: 0. These traits are boosters to ones selfconcept which probably explain why even the females in the non-traditional professions have a high job ability perception and self efficacy.884 t-test value 2. Comparison between the self-efficacy of Male and Female respondents GROUP MEAN SD STANDARD Error of Difference 1. Ha: There is difference between self-efficacy of male and female respondents.11 14.11) than males (93.05 – REJECT Ho NS.457 3.05 Decision: Reject Ho Interpretation: There is difference between self.

influence motivation. and psychological state.399 47054. A person may have different levels of self-efficacy for various tasks depending upon the nature of each task and a person's experiences (Bandura. 1997. 1994).101 Mean Square 823. self-efficacy for a task can differ among people. strategy use. 1997). Schunk. Analysis of Variance on the Self-efficacy Score of Respondents Grouped by Educational Attainment. . beliefs. Decision: Reject Ho (p-value 0. 1997). Similarly. in turn.05) Interpretation: There is significant difference on the self-efficacy score of respondents among the different educational level. . Ha: There is significant difference on the self-efficacy score of respondents among the different educational level. can also affect people's self-efficacy and.015 Ho: There is no significant difference on the self-efficacy score of respondents among the different educational level.702 45406.851 194.044 df 2 234 236 F 4. Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 1647.246 Sig. Factors such as modeling.Table 3. effort.015 is less than α level 0. task orientation. verbal persuasion. persistence. Individuals with higher educational attainment are more confident in their ability to be successful and are likely to be motivated to engage in the task (Bandura. and performance (Bandura.

99. It means that MA group has higher self-efficacy score than the BS group.892ns B.not significant 5. Relationship respondent’s variable between self-efficacy score and select . 1997). Table 5.A.18 *. D 4.07 0.05 ns.A.05) Conclusion: There is significant difference between the SE of BS and MA groups. Ph. Those with higher educational attainments are more confident in their ability to be successful and are likely to be motivated to engage in the task (Bandura. 94. (Scheffe) Comparison Among Means Group M.489* BS and MA group Ho: There is no significant difference on the self-efficacy among those with BS and MA degree. - B.significant @ 0.67 99.597 ns Mean Difference Ph.S. D Means M. Decision: Reject Ho (p-value 0.S.026 is less than α level 0.Table 4. Ha: There is significant difference on the self-efficacy score among those with BS and MA degree.

170** .022 @ 0.011 @ 0.165* .01 N Self-Esteem Pearson Correlation 237 . (2-tailed) N Age Pearson Correlation 238 .05 N Highest Educational Attainment Pearson Correlation 237 .012 @ 0.05 N Self Confidence Pearson 237 .011 @ 0.112 Significan Prob/sig ce Level .Self Efficacy Self Efficacy Pearson Correlation Sig.086 NS N Sex Pearson Correlation 237 .164* .009 @ 0.05 N Income Level Pearson Correlation 237 .05 .148* .

05 N Self Confidence Pearson 237 .170** .009 @ 0.086 NS N Sex Pearson Correlation 237 .05 N Income Level Pearson Correlation 237 .05 .022 @ 0. (2-tailed) N Age Pearson Correlation 238 .112 Significan Prob/sig ce Level .01 N Self-Esteem Pearson Correlation 237 .164* .05 N Highest Educational Attainment Pearson Correlation 237 .011 @ 0.148* .Self Efficacy Self Efficacy Pearson Correlation Sig.011 @ 0.165* .012 @ 0.

the correlation between self-efficacy and age is 0. Squaring this number yields 0. we can see that the correlation between self-efficacy and educational attainment is 0.Self-efficacy and age Decision: Accept Ho (p-value 0. It implies that sex affects the self-efficacy of the respondents.43% of its variability with educational attainment.009)) is less than the α level (0. meaning that self-efficacy shares approximately 2.01).012544. Squaring this number yields 0.021904.170. However. This indicates that income level affects the self-efficacy of the respondents. Moreover. Interpretation: There is a significant correlation between self-efficacy and income level of the respondents.89% of its variability with income level. Squaring this number yields . Self-efficacy and sex Decision: Reject Ho (p-value 0.05). Furthermore. Interpretation: There is a significant correlation between self-efficacy and educational attainment.086 is greater than the α level 0. age does not affect the self-efficacy of the respondents. Interpretation: There is a significant correlation between self-efficacy and sex. meaning that self-efficacy shares approximately 2.05). . We can see the correlation between selfefficacy and income level is 0. meaning that self-efficacy shares approximately 1.024336.011 is less than the α level 0.05).148.112.25% of its variability with age. Self-efficacy and educational attainment Decision: Reject Ho (p-value 0. Self-efficacy and Income level Decision: Reject Ho because p-value (0. meaning that self-efficacy shares approximately 2. In other words.022) is less than the α level 0.0289.19% of its variability with sex. we can see that the correlation between self-efficacy and sex is 0. Squaring this number yields .156. It means that educational attainment affects the self-efficacy of the respondents. Interpretation: There is no significant correlation between self-efficacy and age.

026896. However. We can see the correlation between self-efficacy and IQ level is 0.05).07% of its variability with IQ level.027 is less than the α level 0. Tu support this. Interpretation: There is no significant correlation between self-efficacy and awards received in elementary. Interpretation: There is a significant correlation between self-efficacy and self-esteem. This means that the self-efficacy of the respondents is also affected by their IQ level. we can see that the correlation between self-efficacy and self-confidence is 0. Self efficacy and self-confidence Decision: Reject Ho (p-value 0. Squaring this number yields .69% of its variability with self-esteem. This implies that the self-efficacy of the respondents also depends on their self-confidence.05).012 is less than the α level 0.166) is greater than the α level 0. Squaring this . Self-efficacy and IQ Level Decision: Reject Ho (p-value 0.090. meaning that self-efficacy shares approximately 2. meaning that selfefficacy shares approximately 2. we can see that the correlation between selfefficacy and income level is 0.05). Self-efficacy and Awards Received in Elementary Decision: Accept Ho (p-value 0. we can see the correlation between self-efficacy and awards received in elementary is 0. Interpretation: There is a significant correlation between self-efficacy and self-confidence.Self-efficacy and self-esteem Decision: Reject Ho (p-value 0. Squaring this number yields .164.020736.163. meaning that self-efficacy shares approximately 2.011 is less than the α level 0. Moreover. Squaring this number yields 0. It implies that the awards received by the respondents during their elementary years and their self-efficacy are independent of each other. Interpretation: There is a significant correlation between self-efficacy and IQ level.05).26569.66% of its variability with self-confidence. It means that self-esteem affects the self-efficacy of the respondents.144.

002 is less than the α level 0.05).13% of its variability with level of motivation. Interpretation: There is a significant correlation between self-efficacy and awards received in college.197.035721.88% of its variability with awards received in college. meaning that self-efficacy shares approximately 7. we can see the correlation between self-efficacy and awards received in college is 0. We can see the correlation between self-efficacy and awards received in secondary is 0. Squaring this number yields .57% of its variability with awards received in secondary. Furthermore.81% of its variability with awards received in elementary. 071289.000 is less than the α level 0.189.267. This implies that expectations in life . It means that the self-efficacy of the respondents is also dependent on their level of motivation.01).number yields 0. Squaring this number yields . Self-efficacy and Awards Received in College Decision: Reject Ho (p-value 0.003 is less than the α level 0. Self-efficacy and Level of Motivation Decision: Reject Ho (p-value 0. meaning that self-efficacy shares approximately 0. Squaring this number yields . Interpretation: There is a significant correlation between self-efficacy and level of motivation. We can see the correlation between self-efficacy and income level is 0. It means that awards received in secondary affects the self-efficacy of the respondents. Self-efficacy and Awards Received in Secondary Decision: Reject Ho (p-value 0. Interpretation: There is a significant correlation between self-efficacy and awards received in secondary. meaning that self-efficacy shares approximately 3. Interpretation: There is a significant correlation between self-efficacy and expectations in life of the respondents.01).01). Self-efficacy and Expectations in Life Decision: Reject Ho (p-value 0.021 is less than the α level 0.0081. meaning that selfefficacy shares approximately 3.038809. This implies that the awards received by the respondents during their college years affect their self-efficacy.

It means that the level of trust that their family gives them also affects the self-efficacy of the respondents.57 1. Squaring this number yields 0.89 5.75 t-value Prob.22% of its variability with expectations in life.149.237. Interpretation: There is a significant correlation between self-efficacy and level of trust the family gives.62% of its variability with level of trust the family gives. meaning that self-efficacy shares approximately 2. Self-efficacy and Level of Trust the Family Gives Decision: Reject Ho (p-value 0.also affect the self-efficacy of the respondents.01).06 4. Squaring this number yields 0. Table 6. We can see the correlation between self-efficacy and income level is 0.001 0.005 0.73** 2.23** 2.133 3.068 0.121 0.041 College Award . meaning that self-efficacy shares approximately 5.056169.022201.05* 0.26 3.007 0. 0.72 1.92 1.60 Standard Error of Regression 1.54 5.095 0. Regression Parameters of Self-Efficacy Score Predictor Constant Level of Motivation Award College Level of Trust Sex R2 Change Regression Coefficient 61. we can see the correlation between self-efficacy and level of trust the family gives is 0. Moreover.85** 2.000 is less than the α level 0.

doubt decreases it.1% of the difference in self efficacy R 2 being 0. While trust increases self-efficacy. This finding is attributed to the fact that receiving awards can increase your ability. It is generally easier to decrease someone's self-efficacy than it is to increase it (Bandura). . 1982) Level of Trust Based on the regression analysis on the level of trust that the family are giving explain 12. Receiving award can increase your competence that requires orchestration and continuous improvisation of multiple skills to manage ever changing circumstances and execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations. (Bandura. Social trust relate to encouragements/discouragements.Based on the regression analysis on awards received in college can explain 9. capability and confidence to excel in the things that you do.095 as indicated by the regression coefficient. self efficacy score of the respondents increase by 5.121 as indicated by the regression of coefficient. This finding is attributed to the fact that individuals the more you are being trusted the more you become responsible of your actions. These can have a strong influence – most people remember times where something said to them significantly altered their confidence.26 units for every increase in those who have high level of trust in their family and likely to strive more to please the family with the achievement that they received.5% of the difference in self efficacy R 2 being 0.89 units for every increase in those who have awards in college are likely to have higher level of confidence in performing their undertakings and commonly more responsible in performing their duty. self efficacy score of the respondents increase by 4.

- Landowner
- Milestone Farms vs Office of the President
- Answers to Multiple Choice Government Accounting
- MBA (Finals)
- Citizenship Lecture Philippines Constitution
- ARticle VII Phil Consti Lecture
- JUDICIAL.docx
- Being Tough Means You Care
- Health and wellness
- ECCA2013-1-2_4_1-vandeVen.pdf
- Ravindranath2012.pdf
- Brant.pdf
- Dost SO on salary.pdf
- 38_fig-Model
- AE42.2
- Organic Farming
- some research
- Research on Ludong
- 03 Cagayan Valley
- RA 10068
- RA 10068
- Paes 101
- 10 Journals
- go! color!

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulEE

EE

- Bouffard Et Al (2005) - Influence of Achievement Goals and Self-efficacyby Lanz Olives
- Going Beyond Traditional Motivational and Behavioral Approachesby Roberto Pozza Neto
- Educational Computing Research-2014-Xie-beliefs and Motivation in Asynchronous Online Learning in College-level Classesby Lisa
- Summary 1by Dexter Determinado

- The Self-Directed Search and Career Self-Efficacy.pdf
- Chapter 4 Format
- 123-101-1-PB
- Re-Sit Test
- Bouffard Et Al (2005) - Influence of Achievement Goals and Self-efficacy
- Going Beyond Traditional Motivational and Behavioral Approaches
- Educational Computing Research-2014-Xie-beliefs and Motivation in Asynchronous Online Learning in College-level Classes
- Summary 1
- The Effect of Verbal Persuasion in Self-efficacy (Autosaved)
- scct-2.pdf
- Earley, 1994
- 3.WilliamLucas (1)
- 3.WilliamLucas.pdf
- Educational Computing Research-2005-Br舤en-Internet-specific Epistemological Beliefs and Learning Within Internet Technologies
- Bandura a. (2004)
- 08. Schwarzer HAPA 2008 Obligatoriu
- TAS13.2_Akanbi
- IJBRM_V2_I3-libre
- Impact of Mentoring
- Weinberg and Gould on Bandura
- A2 Health and Clinical Psychology
- Article Summary
- tmp6925.tmp
- NERA-07_AchEmotions_Artino+Stephens
- Asses Ment
- ASSIGNMENT 1
- Topic 2
- Article 1019
- Statistics Juday
- tmpAC01.tmp
- Frequency Table-Chad - Copy