T-TEST GROUPS=sex(1 2)

/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=level_of_satisfaction
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).

T-Test

Notes

Output Created 07-NOV-2021 11:01:32

Comments
Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Input
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data
13
File
User defined missing values
Definition of Missing
are treated as missing.
Statistics for each analysis
Missing Value Handling are based on the cases with
Cases Used no missing or out-of-range
data for any variable in the
analysis.
T-TEST GROUPS=sex(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS

Syntax
/VARIABLES=level_of_satisf
action
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
Processor Time 00:00:00.03
Resources
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.08

[DataSet0]
 Group Statistics

sex N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

male 8 19.5000 2.44949 .86603

level_of_satisfaction
female 5 35.2000 7.12039 3.18434

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means

Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of

tailed) Difference Difference the Difference

Lower Upper

Equal variances
11.806 .006 -5.838 11 .000 -15.70000 2.68937 -21.61927 -9.78073
level_of_satisfacti assumed

on Equal variances not

-4.758 4.599 .006 -15.70000 3.30000 -24.41015 -6.98985
assumed

 Data Analysis
1. Is there a significant difference in the level satisfaction of students in school services
when grouped according to sex?
 There is a significant difference in the level of satisfaction of students in school
services when grouped according to sex.
 By looking at the mean scores, Female has the highest mean with 35.2000
compared to Male with mean score of 19.5000.
 Looking into the Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances, there is a significant
difference because the T-value is less than .05. Female students has a higher
satisfaction compared to Male.
ONEWAY whiteness BY soap_formulas
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING ANALYSIS.

Oneway

Notes

Output Created 07-NOV-2021 19:09:38

Comments
Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Input
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data
24
File
User-defined missing values
Definition of Missing
are treated as missing.
Statistics for each analysis
Missing Value Handling
are based on cases with no
Cases Used
missing data for any variable
in the analysis.
ONEWAY whiteness BY
soap_formulas
Syntax /STATISTICS
DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
Processor Time 00:00:00.02
Resources
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.04

[DataSet0]
 Descriptives
whiteness
N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximu
Deviation Error Mean m
Lower Bound Upper Bound
T1 6 19.0000 3.03315 1.23828 15.8169 22.1831 16.00 24.00
T2 6 20.6667 1.75119 .71492 18.8289 22.5044 18.00 23.00
T3 6 28.1667 5.19294 2.12001 22.7170 33.6163 19.00 34.00
T4 6 24.5000 3.01662 1.23153 21.3343 27.6657 20.00 29.00
Total 24 23.0833 4.86261 .99258 21.0300 25.1366 16.00 34.00

ANOVA
whiteness

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 302.167 3 100.722 8.336 .001

Within Groups 241.667 20 12.083
Total 543.833 23

ONEWAY whiteness BY soap_formulas

/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING ANALYSIS
/POSTHOC=LSD ALPHA(0.05).

[DataSet0]

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: whiteness
LSD
(I) (J) Mean Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
soap_formulas soap_formulas Difference (I- Lower Upper
J) Bound Bound
T1 T2 -1.66667 2.00693 .416 -5.8531 2.5197
T3 -9.16667* 2.00693 .000 -13.3531 -4.9803
 T4 -5.50000* 2.00693 .013 -9.6864 -1.3136
T1 1.66667 2.00693 .416 -2.5197 5.8531
T2 T3 -7.50000* 2.00693 .001 -11.6864 -3.3136
T4 -3.83333 2.00693 .071 -8.0197 .3531
T1 9.16667* 2.00693 .000 4.9803 13.3531
T3 T2 7.50000* 2.00693 .001 3.3136 11.6864
T4 3.66667 2.00693 .083 -.5197 7.8531
T1 5.50000* 2.00693 .013 1.3136 9.6864
T4 T2 3.83333 2.00693 .071 -.3531 8.0197
T3 -3.66667 2.00693 .083 -7.8531 .5197
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

 Data Analysis
2. Compare the effectiveness of the new soap formulas by using appropriate statistical

tool.
 In the first table Descriptives, the Highest mean is T3 which is 28.1667
followed by T4 with a mean of 24.5000; T2 with a mean of 20.6667 and T1
with a mean of 19.000.
 In the second table the Anova, The T- value is .001 which is less than.05
which means there is a significant difference in the effectiveness of new
soap formulas.
 Since our result is significant we have to perform Post Hoc Test. In
Multiple Comparison, By looking in the Table. There is no significant
difference between T1 and T2 (vice versa) While between T1 and T3(vice
versa) and T1 and T4(vice versa), it shows that there is a significant
difference as shown in the table above.
Frequency Table

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=age sex socioeconomic_status

/BARCHART FREQ
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies

Output Created 07-NOV-2021 15:40:08

Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
 N of Rows in Working Data
33
File
User-defined missing values
Definition of Missing
are treated as missing.
Missing Value Handling
Statistics are based on all
Cases Used
cases with valid data.
FREQUENCIES
VARIABLES=age sex
Syntax socioeconomic_status
/BARCHART FREQ
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Processor Time 00:00:04.33
Resources
Elapsed Time 00:00:04.89

[DataSet1]

Statistics

age sex socioeconomic_

status

Valid 33 33 33
N
Missing 0 0 0

Frequency Table

age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid 21 1 3.0 3.0 3.0

22 1 3.0 3.0 6.1

23 2 6.1 6.1 12.1

24 1 3.0 3.0 15.2

 25 1 3.0 3.0 18.2

26 3 9.1 9.1 27.3

27 3 9.1 9.1 36.4

28 2 6.1 6.1 42.4

29 1 3.0 3.0 45.5

30 1 3.0 3.0 48.5

31 1 3.0 3.0 51.5

32 1 3.0 3.0 54.5

33 1 3.0 3.0 57.6

35 1 3.0 3.0 60.6

37 1 3.0 3.0 63.6

38 2 6.1 6.1 69.7

43 2 6.1 6.1 75.8

45 2 6.1 6.1 81.8

48 1 3.0 3.0 84.8

49 1 3.0 3.0 87.9

50 1 3.0 3.0 90.9

51 1 3.0 3.0 93.9

55 1 3.0 3.0 97.0

60 1 3.0 3.0 100.0

Total 33 100.0 100.0

sex

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

male 5 15.2 15.2 15.2

Valid female 28 84.8 84.8 100.0

Total 33 100.0 100.0

socioeconomic_status

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid poor 2 6.1 6.1 6.1

 lowermiddleclass 8 24.2 24.2 30.3

middleclass 9 27.3 27.3 57.6

upperclass 14 42.4 42.4 100.0

Total 33 100.0 100.0

Bar Chart
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=item1 item2 item3
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV.

Descriptives

Notes
Output Created 07-NOV-2021 12:53:41
Comments
Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Input
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data
33
File
User defined missing values
Definition of Missing
are treated as missing.
Missing Value Handling
All non-missing data are
Cases Used
used.
DESCRIPTIVES
VARIABLES=item1 item2
Syntax item3
/STATISTICS=MEAN
STDDEV.
Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Resources
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00

[DataSet1]
 Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation

Staffs’ are willing to explain

33 4.3636 .60302
questions
The staffs provide prompt
33 4.3636 .60302
services
Students are treated well 33 4.3030 .58549
Valid N (listwise) 33

NEW FILE.
DATASET NAME DataSet2 WINDOW=FRONT.
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=age item1 item2 item3
/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.

Correlations

Notes

Output Created 07-NOV-2021 13:12:51

Comments
Active Dataset DataSet2
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Input
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data
33
File
User-defined missing values
Definition of Missing
are treated as missing.
Statistics for each pair of
Missing Value Handling
variables are based on all the
Cases Used
cases with valid data for that
pair.
 CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=age item1
Syntax item2 item3
/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Resources
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00

[DataSet2]

Correlations

age item1 item2 item3

Pearson Correlation 1 .676** .676** .357*

age Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .042

N 33 33 33 33
** **
Pearson Correlation .676 1 1.000 .740**
item1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 33 33 33 33
** **
Pearson Correlation .676 1.000 1 .740**
item2 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 33 33 33 33
* ** **
Pearson Correlation .357 .740 .740 1

item3 Sig. (2-tailed) .042 .000 .000

N 33 33 33 33

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Data Analysis
3. A research was conducted to determine the level of satisfaction of students in school services.
a. What is the profile of the students in terms of:
1.1 age
1.2 Socio- economic status (SES)
1.3 sex?

 In distribution in terms of age, The results shows that age 26, 27 has the highest
frequency of 3 with 9.1 percent. Age 23,28,38,43,45 has a frequency of 2 with 6.1
percent while the rest of the age has the lowest frequency of 1 with 3.0 percent.
This means that majority of the respondents are with the age of 26 and 27.
  In distribution in terms of Socio-economic status(SES), The results shows that the
Upper Class has the highest frequency of 14 with 42.4 percent. Next is the Middle
class with a frequency of 9 with 27.3 percent; Lower Middle Class with frequency
of 8 with 24.2 percent while Poor has the lowest frequency of 2 with 6.1 percent.

 In distribution in terms of Sex, the result shows that Female students has the
highest frequency of 28 with 84.8 percent while Male students has a frequency of
5 with 15.2 percent. Majority of the respondents are Female.

b. What is the level of satisfaction of students in the school services?

 The highest mean is both Item1 which is staff are willing to explain questions
appropriately about any procedure and Item2 which is staffs provide prompt
services when needed them with a mean of 4.3636. The lowest mean is 4.30 in
item3 (students are treated well). The overall satisfaction is 4.3434 that will fall in
the high level of satisfaction which means that satisfaction is oftentimes evident.

c. Is there a significant relationship between age and satisfaction of students?

 The result of analysis shows the direction of the relationship is positive which
means the the relationship of two variables are directly proportional.
 The T-value is less than .05 which means there is a significant relationship of age
and satisfaction of the students.