CDT 3C Dave Mark S Lacambra Section: Integrity

Suppose that you are the Regional Director of Region 4A. You noticed that the performance of
the personnel is declining leading to low work efficiency. You decided to do a study comparing
the provinces of Laguna (coded as 1), Batangas (coded as 2), and Quezon (coded as 3). As a
trained researcher at PPSA and an expert in Jamovi, you embarked on a research journey to
determine the factors affecting employee engagement. Based on your research the following
variables are relevant to your study:

Dependent Variable – employee engagement (coded in Excel as EE)

Independent variables:
a. Job Variety - (coded in Excel as JV)
b. Supervisor Support – (coded in Excel as SS)
c. Development Opportunities - (coded in Excel as DO)
d. Autonomy - (coded in Excel as AU)
e. Feedback - (coded in Excel as FE)

Questions:
1. Draw the conceptual framework of the study.

The independent variables (job variety, superior support, development opportunities,

autonomy and feedback) affecting the dependent variable (employee engagement) will
be the focus of the study or the input from which the researcher will be drawing its
conclusion. The independent variables will be compared from each province of region
4a. From there, the researcher will determine whether these independent variables
from each province affect their work efficiency.

2. Conduct a descriptive analysis showing the mean for all of the variables --dependent
(EE) and all independent variables (JV, SS, DO, AU and FE)

Mean of all the Variables

 Descriptives
EE JV SS DO AU FE

Mean 5.04 5.39 5.45 4.99 6.51 5.45

3. Based on number 2, show a sub-group analysis: a. per province b. uniformed vs. non-
uniformed

a. Mean of all Variables per Province

Descriptives
Province EE JV SS DO AU FE

Mean Laguna 5.09 5.32 5.38 4.95 6.51 5.42

5.0
Batangas 5.45 5.50 5.15 6.48 5.40
0
Quezon 5.03 5.40 5.48 4.91 6.54 5.52

b. Mean of all Variables per Employee type

Descriptives
Unifomed EE JV SS DO AU FE

Mean Non-uniformed 5.04 5.38 5.58 5.02 6.46 5.37

Uniformed 5.05 5.40 5.32 4.96 6.56 5.53

4. Compare which province is highest in terms of the identified variables -- dependent (EE)
and all independent variables (JV, SS, DO, AU and FE). Conduct the appropriate
statistical test to support your answer.
 Descriptives
Province EE JV SS DO AU FE

Mean Laguna 5.09 5.32 5.38 4.95 6.51 5.42

5.0
Batangas 5.45 5.50 5.15 6.48 5.40
0
Quezon 5.03 5.40 5.48 4.91 6.54 5.52

The table above shows that for the dependent variable- employee engagement, Laguna has the
highest mean thus it can be interpreted that Laguna had performed well in terms of their
employee engagement followed by Quezon and lastly Batangas. While for independent
variables - job variety, superior support, and development opportunities, Batangas garnered
the highest performance score with the mean of 5.45, 5.50, and 5.15 respectively. The province
of Quezon has performed well compared to the two princes when it comes to autonomy and
feedback, having the highest mean of 6.54 and 5.52 for the said independent variables.

5. Compare uniformed (coded as 1) and non-uniformed (coded as 0) personnel in terms of

the identified variables -- dependent (EE) and all independent variables (JV, SS, DO, AU
and FE). Conduct the appropriate statistical test to support your answer.

Descriptives
Uniformed EE JV SS DO AU FE

Mean Non-uniformed 5.04 5.38 5.58 5.02 6.46 5.37

Uniformed 5.05 5.40 5.32 4.96 6.56 5.53

The data depicts that non-uniformed personnel have the highest mean in terms of the
independent variables- superior support, development opportunities and autonomy. Thus non-
uniformed is more performing than uniformed personnel with respect to superior support,
development opportunities and autonomy. For the rest of the variables, it can be concluded
that higher performance was displayed by the uniformed personnel, that is when talking about
employee engagement, job variety, autonomy and feedback.

6. Run a correlation analysis for all of the variables. Which variable/s is/are correlated to
each other? What is the respective strength of the correlation? Support your answer
with statistical data.

Correlation Analysis
 Correlation Matrix
EE JV SS DO AU FE

Pear
EE son' —
sr
df —
p-
valu —
e
Pear
0.02
JV son' —
0
sr
df 330 —
p-
0.71
valu —
3
e
Pear
0.09 0.17
SS son' ** —
2 4
sr
df 330 330 —
p-
0.09 0.0
valu —
5 01
e
Pear -
0.01 0.0
DO son' 0.06 —
2 08
sr 9
df 330 330 330 —
p-
0.82 0.21 0.88
valu —
4 3 3
e
Pear - -
0.02 0.03
AU son' 0.02 0.04 —
9 0
sr 7 6
df 330 330 330 330 —
p-
0.59 0.62 0.40 0.58
valu —
4 0 2 9
e
Pear
0.01 0.03 0.01 0.06
FE son' 0.119 * —
8 3 7 3
sr
df 330 330 330 330 330 —
p-
0.03 0.73 0.54 0.75 0.24
valu —
0 7 7 8 9
e

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

The graph above depicts a positive value of Pearson’s r on all independent variables (job
variety, superior support, development opportunities, autonomy and feedback). However, the
p-value of almost all the independent variables is greater than the standard significant level of
0.05 hence should be considered not normally distributed and had failed to reject the null
hypothesis “there is no significant relationship between dependent and independent
variables”. The variables having p-value below significant level are feedback (to employee
engagement) and superior support (to job variety) which also has a positive value for
Pearson’s r therefore, as supported from the data above, it is safe to say that there is a positive
relationship between employee engagement and feedback as well as superior support with that
of job variety. The closer the value of Pearson’s r to 1, the stronger the relationship is from each
other hence, as Pearson’s r value for feedback is only at 0.119 and job variety at 0.174, the
strength of correlation between the variables are weak.

7. Conduct a regression analysis based on the conceptual framework of the study. Which
variable/s is/are significant? Support your result with statistical tests.

Linear Regression
Model Fit Measures
Model R R²

0.022
1 0.151
8

Model Coefficients - EE

Predictor Estimate SE t p

Intercept 3.18502 1.1708 2.7203 0.007

JV 0.00427 0.0585 0.0729 0.942
SS 0.09676 0.0609 1.5881 0.113
DO 0.00892 0.0541 0.1650 0.869
AU 0.07297 0.1540 0.4738 0.636
FE 0.14441 0.0692 2.0868 0.038

In regression analysis, the estimated values of the independent values are all positive ranging
from 0.00427 to 0.14441 with the intercept having a 3.18502 value. But not all variables even
having a positive value are related with the dependent variable because other than Feedback,
all others have again a p-value higher than the significant level of 0.05 thus failing to reject the
null hypothesis. It is therefore concluded that only Feedback is directly related with Employee
Engagement because of the positive value of 0.14441. It is interpreted as every 1 increase in
Employee Engagement there is 0.14441 increase also in Feedback. The Feedback variable is the
only significant factor that can be used to predict the dependent variable (Employee
Engagement) and other independent variables are not signiificant.

8. Assume the following values:

a. Job Variety - (coded in Excel as JV) - 6
b. Supervisor Support – (coded in Excel as SS) - 4
c. Development Opportunities - (coded in Excel as DO) - 7
d. Autonomy - (coded in Excel as AU) - 5
e. Feedback - (coded in Excel as FE) – 6

What is the predicted value for employee engagement?

y=mx+b
y= 3.18205 + 6(.14441)
Predicted Value= 4.04851

9. What are the three management implications of the statistical tests that you have
conducted?

The three implications are:

- Management should put more effort to improve work efficiency in the provinces
of Laguna and Quezon. Also, they should take into consideration the
performances of its non-uniformed personnel. Batangas has the best
performance in work efficiency as the province has the most number of variables
with highest mean among the three provinces. However it is noted, based on
the result on mean values when comparing uniformed and non uniformed, that
non-uniformed personnel should be given more attention to work efficiency than
uniformed specially as to employee engagement, job variety, autonomy and
feedback.
- Employee engagement is being affected only by feedback. The rest of the
variables do not have a positive correlation to employee engagement. Therefore
the work efficiency is not affected by job variety, superior support, development
opportunities and autonomy. It is best for the management to determine other
factors that might have a direct relationship with employee engagement such as,
but not limited to work load, working environment, job satisfaction and salary.
- Management should work on strengthening Feedback as this is concluded to be
a significant factor in predicting employee engagement. Feedback as we all know
is the after service activity done for the satisfaction of the clientele.
Management should provide outstanding after service to better have a
competitive employee engagement performance which boosts the work
efficiency of personnel.
Submit your answers with your name and save the file in PDF format.

Thank you ☺