The Respondents’ Level of Adversity Quotient

Indicators Weighted Verbal Rank

Mean Interpretation

CONTROL

1. You failed a test 4.00 Likely

(3.41- 4.20)

2. Your laptop crashed while you are doing 3.68 Likely

your assignment (3.41- 4.20)

3. You are overloaded with your school 3.94 Likely

projects (3.41- 4.20)

4. You cannot recognize a certain topic that 3.59 Likely

was been discussed last meeting. (3.41- 4.20)

5. You feel sleepy during class 3.78 Likely

(3.41- 4.20)

6. You are unable to take the exam because 2.95 Neutral

you have not paid the tuition fee. (2.61-3.40)

Average 3.66 Likely 4

(3.41- 4.20)

The table above indicates the control of the respondent’s level of adversity quotient. as

we can see, the over all weighted mean in this area is 3.66 with a verbal interpretation of likely

and a rank of the 4 which means that the respondents liked the control of the over-all system. In
this area, the area of “you are to take the exam because you have not paid the tuition fee” got the

lowest weighted mean of 2.95 and a verbal interpretation of “neutral” which means that the

students has no control in terms of the financial capabilities and they don’t have a financial

freedom because they’re still independent to the allowance they got from their parents while the

highest weighted mean of 4.00 and a interpretation of “likely” goes to the “you failed a test”

section which means that students adversity quotient has a higher impact every time they got a

failed score.

According to Ms. Veerpal Kaur & Dr. Harneet Billing (2022), the mean scores on the

control dimension for all sub-samples have the highest quotient value among the four adversity

dimensions, while the endurance and reach dimensions have the lowest. In addition, the value for

the mean scores for the total adversity quotient among the entire sample of students can be seen,

indicating that these students have an average AQ.

OWNERSHIP

1. Your group work output is poor and not 3.98 Responsible

good enough. (3.41- 4.20)

2. Your partner in return demonstrates 3.26 Neither irresponsible

forget his/her line while performing to nor responsible

your clinical instructor. (2.61-3.40)

3. All of your groupmates did poorly on the 3.38 Neither irresponsible

assigned task that was given to them. nor responsible

(2.61-3.40)

4. Your return demonstration performance 4.23 Very Responsible

 is not good enough (4.21-5.00)

5. Your group members did not reach the 3.75 Responsible

target deadline. (3.41- 4.20)

6. Your group makes very little progress in 3.77 Responsible

a specialized subject. (3.41- 4.20)

Average 3.73 Responsible 1

(3.41- 4.20)

Table 2 indicated the Ownership of the respondents’ level of adversity quotient which garnered a

total weighted mean 3.73 which has a verbal interpretation of “responsible” which means that the

student-respondents are showing performance which is incredibly good. On the other hand, 3.26

weighted mean and a verbal interpretation of “Neither irresponsible nor responsible” goes to the

area of “Your partner in return demonstrates forget his/her line while performing to your clinical

instructor” which means that the students are not putting some efforts in the task they do. While

the highest weighted mean is 4.23 and has a verbal interpretation of “very responsible” goes to

the area of “Your return demonstration performance is not good enough” which means that AQ

has a negative effect or significance when it comes to the ownership status respondents.

Based on the study of Mwivanda, M., & Kingi, P. (2020), the pearson correlation moment was

used to determine the connection between students' academic performance and teachers'

ownership of the adversity quotient. The purpose of this was to put the null hypothesis that; The

ownership dimension of teachers' adversity quotient does not significantly correlate with

students' academic performance.

REACH

1. Your case study presentation had a lot of 3.07 Neutral

 criticisms made by the panelist. (2.61-3.40)

2. You are late for your hospital duty 3.72 Be somehow limited

to this situation

(3.41- 4.20)

3. You missed your return demo checklist 3.88 Pass Later

(3.41- 4.20)

4. You cannot be able to log-in your 3.85 Be somehow limited

attendance in your specialized subject. to this situation

(3.41- 4.20)

5. Your group mates always disagree with 3.47 Be somehow limited

your ideas to this situation

(3.41- 4.20)

6. You are asked to repeat your Nursing 3.95 Be somehow limited

care plan for the 3rd time. to this situation

(3.41- 4.20)

Average 3.66 Be somehow limited 2.5

to this situation

(3.41- 4.20)

The table above indicates the reach of the respondents’ level of adversity quotient. It has an

average weighted mean of 3.66 and has a verbal interpretation of “be somehow limited to this

situation’ which means that all the efforts of the respondents put in their work and efforts are not

good enough in both the people and situation that every respondents are into. “Your case study

presentation had a lot of criticisms made by the panelist” got the lowest weighted mean of 3.07
and a verbal interpretation of “neutral” which means that AQ of the respondent did not reach the

expectation of the panel member while the statement “You are asked to repeat your Nursing care

plan for the 3rd time.” got the highest weighted mean of 3.95 and a verbal interpretation of “Be

somehow limited to this situation” which only means that affirmation indicators has a negative

significance to the respondents’ AQ.

According to Ng, T. (2013), reach refers to the perceived scope of the adversity, or how far the

adversity reaches into a person's life. People with disabilities will feel more handicapped the

more adversity they perceive. They will more often than not take on cynical standpoints,

experience unsettling, restlessness, sharpness, and weakness; make bad choices; and isolate

themselves socially and professionally. All people, regardless of their professions, benefit from

the capacity to quarantine adversity and manage its "reach."

ENDURANCE

1. You forgot to perform the step-by-step 3.07 Neutral

procedure of your return demonstration (2.61-3.40)

2. You lost an important data regarding 3.72 Pass Later

your case presentation (3.41- 4.20)

3. You unintentionally misplaced your 3.88 Pass Later

return demonstration checklist. (3.41- 4.20)

4. You consistently got low scores 3.85 Pass Later

(3.41- 4.20)

5. You got a failing mark. 3.47 Pass Later

(3.41- 4.20)
 6. You didn't have enough money to buy 3.95 Pass Later

the things I need in school (3.41- 4.20)

Average 3.66 Pass Later 2.5

(3.41- 4.20)

Overall Weighted Mean 3.67

Table 4. indicated the Endurance in the respondents’ adversity quotient. The average weighted

mean for this section is 3.66 and has a weighted mean of “pass later” which means that the

respondents have a tendency to delayed everything in enduring things. the indicators “You

forgot to perform the step-by-step procedure of your return demonstration” got the lowest

weighted mean of 3.07 and has a verbal interpretation of “neutral: which only means that the

respondents have the stable cause in their every performance. While “You didn't have enough

money to buy the things I need in school” got the highest weighted mean of 3.95 and have a

verbal interpretation of “pass later” which means that financial stability of the respondents can be

overcome at some point.

Based on the study of Groopman, J. (2004).), perseverance, which is connected to the apparent

length of the affliction. Peterson, Seligman, and Others' Attribution Theory shown that there is a

major distinction between individuals who property difficulty to something transitory as opposed

to something more long-lasting or persevering. According to this theory, people who attribute

failure to their effort (a temporary cause) are more likely to continue than those who attribute

failure to their ability, which is a stable cause. The hope that "this too shall pass" is also a part of
endurance. Hope is self-assurance that is based on a realistic assessment of one's capabilities for

overcoming obstacles in one's environment.

References

Ms. Veerpal Kaur & Dr. Harneet Billing (2022). DVERSITY QUOTIENT AMONG SENIOR

SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS: EFFECT OF GENDER, LOCALE

AND NATURE OF FAMILY. Retrieved from

http://www.ghgcollegesadhar.org/files/education/journal/j_3_3_2022.pdf

Mwivanda, M., & Kingi, P. (2020). Teachers’ Adversity Quotient Dimension of Ownership:

Predictor of Students’ Academic Performance in Public Secondary Schools

in Kenya. Retrieved from

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/87450001/352507699-libre.pdf?

1655131464=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename

%3DTeachers_Adversity_Quotient_Dimension_of.pdf&Expires=16829417

92&Signature=OPCx4ld3lnsO9iZL5Wb-

0zl98i7frTSL6u8N1MSFpiqGswEFLkBvDwHmtxMV-

z4lqpyNC7rek3a73w0-xUPEMwDctcZLhrWK-

JIhkeQ6eLccUys9eNP5ofMBnozwVKgC8AtRuCS4G89jhEMud9ueQPq7

6lV5W9J5ZyfquclunAu-

tzRGMcoqiUVYhqBiLuxXXnxsLlOqA8H21HPYpEYM4VAJKVikV~pC

9CdY2duw4aI4kVuplzjE58te7JID2jwaGjRL8H7O8GqLyS~Bahz4s2j7Fx

Cn5BYFVhDy63T6XzFJK4r-
 1fyu3PXRlTrHjOjmj3BCiIxJL1Kbo2FPCVShag__&Key-Pair-

Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Ng, T. (2013). Organizational Resilience and Adversity Quotient. Retrieved from

https://titusng.com/2013/01/27/organizational-resilience-and-adversity-

quotient/

Groopman, J. (2004). The anatomy of hope: How people prevail in the face of illness. Random

House Trade Paperback