Table 1

COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
Frequency Percentage
College of Accountancy
62
20.67%
College of Business Administration
95
31.67%
College of Information Technology and
Engineering
39
13.00%
College of Nursing and Midwifery
12
4.00%
College of Teacher Education and Liberal
Arts
66
22.00%
College of Criminology
15
5.00%
College of Hotel and Restaurant Management
11
3.67%
TOTAL
300
100%
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the
Respondents according to College Department

Table

distribution

presents
of

the

the

frequency

respondents

and

according

percentage
to

College

department.
It illustrates that majority of the respondents are
students from the College of Business Administration

Table 2
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the
Respondents according to Year Level
YEAR LEVEL
Second Year
Third Year
Fourth Year

Frequency Percentage
111
32.00%
96
37.00%
90
30.00%

Fifth Year
TOTAL

3
300

1.00%
100%

Table 3
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the
Respondents according to Gender

GENDER

Frequency Percentage
112
37.33%
188
62.67%
300
100%

Male
Female
TOTAL

Table 4
Analysis of Variance on the

Variable
Year
Level
Departmen
t
Sex

F
computed
Value
7.48

F
Critical
Value
2.65

5.16

2.13

0.004

3.87

Sig.
Level
5%
5%
5%

Decision

Interpretatio
n

Reject Ho

Significant

Reject Ho

Significant

Accept Ho

Not
significant

Table 5
Analysis of Variance

Year
Level

Mean

Second
Year
3.283

Comparison

Mean
Difference

Critical
Value

Second
& Third
Year

0.21

0.25

Decision

Interpretation

Accept
Ho

Not
Significant

Third
Year
3.071

Second
&
Fourth
Year

2.803

Second
& Fifth
Year

0.13

1.05

Accept
Ho

3.417

Third &
Fourth
Year

0.27

0.25

Reject
Ho

Significant

Third &
Fifth
Year

0.35

1.05

Accept
Ho

Not
Significant

Fourth
& Fifth
Year

0.61

1.05

Accept
Ho

Not
Significant

Fourth
Year
Fifth
Year

0.48

0.26

Reject
Ho

Significant
Not
Significant

Table 6
Post Hoc Analysis for College Department
Department

Mean

Comparison

Mean
Difference

Critical
Value

Decision

Interpretation

COA

2.803

COA & CBA

0.21

0.34

Accept Ho

Not Significant

CBA

3.013

COA & CITE

0.45

0.42

Reject Ho

Significant

CITE

3.249

COA & CNM

0.35

0.65

Accept Ho

Not Significant

CNM

2.454

COA & TELA

0.48

0.37

Reject Ho

Significant

TELA

3.283

COA & Crim

0.42

0.59

Accept Ho

Not Significant

Crim

3.220

COA & HRM

0.60

0.68

Accept Ho

Not Significant

HRM

3.405

CBA & CITE

0.24

0.39

Accept Ho

Not Significant

CBA & CNM

0.56

0.63

Accept Ho

Not Significant

CBA & TELA

0.27

0.33

Accept Ho

Not Significant

CBA & Crim

0.21

0.57

Accept Ho

Not Significant

CBA & HRM

0.39

0.66

Accept Ho

Not Significant

CITE & CNM

0.79

0.68

Reject Ho

Significant

CITE & TELA

0.03

0.42

Accept Ho

Not Significant

CITE & CrIm

0.03

0.63

Accept Ho

Not Significant

CITE & HRM

0.16

0.70

Accept Ho

Not Significant

CNM & TELA

0.83

0.65

Reject Ho

Significant

CNM & Crim

0.77

0.80

Accept Ho

Not Significant

CNM & HRM

0.95

0.86

Reject Ho

Significant

TELA & Crim

0.06

0.59

Accept Ho

Not Significant

TELA & HRM

0.12

0.67

Accept Ho

Not Significant

Crim & HRM

0.18

0.82

Accept Ho

Not Significant

Time in processing the I.D.

1. The ID Section starts
immediately on the
scheduled time
2. The ID Section processed
the ID immediately after
taking the picture.
3. They released the ID right
after taking the picture.

Weighted Interpretations
Mean
2.81
Good
3.60

Very Good

3.76

Very Good

3.39

Good

Table 7
Weighted Mean Distribution of Satisfaction Level of Services
Offered by the I.D. section to the OLPCC Students According
to Time in processing the I.D.

Students Time
1. I can still utilized my
time to something important
while waiting for my turn.
2. I can still attend my time
on time.

Weighted Interpretations
Mean
2.80
Good
2.91

Good

2.86

Good

Table 8
Weighted Mean Distribution of Satisfaction Level of Services
Offered by the I.D. section to the OLPCC Students According
to Students Time

Table 9
Weighted Mean Distribution of Satisfaction Level of Services
Offered by the I.D. section to the OLPCC Students According
to Personnel Services

Personnel Services
1. The staff in the ID Section
are approachable.
2. The staff in the ID Section
are friendly and
accommodating.
3. The Staff in the ID Section
treat every student equally
(no special treatment).
4. They are qualified and well
prepared to accommodate the
students.
5. They perform their task
effectively.

Weighte
d Mean
3.10

Interpretatio
ns
Good

3.16

Good

2.89

Good

3.03

Good

3.22

Good

3.08

Good

Table 10
Weighted Mean Distribution of Satisfaction Level of Services
Offered by the I.D. section to the OLPCC Students According
to Equipment

Equipment
1. The equipment used are well
maintained.
2. The equipment used is
functioning well.
3. The camera used is suitable
in taking picture.
Location
4. Equipment
used can run in a
long time.
5.
produce
a high
1. Equipment
The location
of processing
quality
product.
the
ID is
accessible to
all.
2. The location of processing
the ID has a proper
ventilation that make me
feel comfortable while
waiting for my turn.
3. The location of processing
the ID is supervised by a
CCTV cameras.
4. My proper belongings are
always secured.
5. It maintain a good and well
organize station.

Weighte
d Mean
3.03

Interpretatio
ns
Good

3.20

Good

2.79

Good

Weighte
2.92
d Mean
2.82
3.03

Interpretatio
Good
ns
Good

2.96
2.89

Good
Good

3.08

Good

3.17

Good

3.00

Good

3.03

Good

Table 10
Weighted Mean Distribution of Satisfaction Level of Services
Offered by the I.D. section to the OLPCC Students According
to Location