CORONADO, Gleniece Angeline L.

Activity 1

Indicators r-value p-value Decision interpretation

Gender

a. Position .302 .341 Accept Ho Not significant

b. Awareness .674 .016 Reject Ho Significant
on online
technology .357 .255 Accept Ho Not significant
c. Availability
of online .674 .016 Reject Ho Significant
technology .674 .016 Reject Ho Significant
d. Impact
e. Trial of
online
technology

Hypothesis

There is no significant relationship between

a. Gender and position

b. Gender and awareness on online technology
c. Gender and Availability of online technology
d. Gender and Impact
e. Gender and trial of online technology

Interpretation

Table readings:

a. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is higher than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being accepted. Thus there is no significant relationship
between gender and the position of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.

b. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is a significant relationship between
gender and the position of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.
 c. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is higher than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being accepted. Thus there is a significant relationship between
gender and the awareness on online technology to brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.

d. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is a significant relationship between
gender and the availability of online technology of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.
e. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is a significant relationship between
gender and the trial of online technology of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.

Indicators r-value p-value Decision interpretation

Position

a. Gender .302 .341 Accept Ho Not significant

b. Awareness .447 .145 accept Ho Not Significant
on online
technology
c. Availability .845 .001 reject Ho significant
of online
technology
d. Impact .447 .145 accept Ho not Significant
e. Trial of .447 .145 accept Ho not Significant
online
technology

Hypothesis

There is no significant relationship between

a. Position and gender

b. position and awareness on online technology
c. position and Availability of online technology
d. position and Impact
e. position and trial of online technology

Interpretation

Table readings:
 a. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is higher than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being accepted. Thus there is no significant relationship
between position and gender of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.

b. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is higher than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being accepted. Thus there is no significant relationship
between position and awareness on online technology of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.

c. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being accepted. Thus there is a significant relationship between
gender and the awareness on online technology to brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.

d. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is higher than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is no significant relationship between
gender and the availability of online technology of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.

e. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is higher than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is no significant relationship between
gender and the trial of online technology of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.

Indicators r-value p-value Decision interpretation

Awareness on
online technology

a. Gender .674 .016 reject Ho significant

b. Position .447 .145 accept Ho Not Significant
f. Availability .529 .077 accept Ho Not significant
of online
technology
g. Impact 1.00 .000 reject Ho Significant
h. Trial of 1.00 .000 reject Ho Significant
online
technology

Hypothesis

There is no significant relationship between

a. Awareness on online technology and gender

b. awareness on online technology and position
c. Awareness on online technology and Availability of online technology
 d. Awareness on online technology and Impact
e. Awareness on online technology and trial of online technology

Interpretation

Table readings:

a. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is a significant relationship between
awareness of online technology and gender of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.
b. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is higher than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being accepted. Thus there is no significant relationship between
awareness of online technology and position of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.
c. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is higher than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being accepted. Thus there is a significant relationship between
awareness of online technology and availability of online technology of brgy. Secretaries and
treasurers.
d. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is a significant relationship between
awareness of online technology and impact of online technology to brgy. Secretaries and
treasurers.
e. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is a significant relationship between
awareness of online technology and trial of online technology to brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.

Indicators r-value p-value Decision interpretation

Availability of
online technology

a. Gender .357 .255 Accept Ho Not significant

b. Position .845 .001 Reject Ho Significant
c. Awareness .529 .077 accept Ho Not significant
of online
technology
d. Impact .529 .077 accept Ho Not Significant
e. Trial of .529 .077 accept Ho Not Significant
online
technology
Hypothesis

There is no significant relationship between

a. Availability of online technology and gender

b. Availability of online technology and position
c. Availability of online technology and Awareness of online technology
d. Availability of online technology and Impact
e. Availability of online technology and trial of online technology

Interpretation

Table readings:

a. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is higher than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being accepted. Thus there is a significant relationship between
availability of online technology and gender of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.
b. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is a significant relationship between
availability of online technology and position of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.
c. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is higher than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being accepted. Thus there is a significant relationship between
availability of online technology and awareness on online technology of brgy. Secretaries and
treasurers.
d. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is higher than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being accepted. Thus there is a significant relationship between
availability of online technology and impact on online technology to brgy. Secretaries and
treasurers.
e. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is higher than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being accepted. Thus there is a significant relationship between
availability of online technology and trial on online technology of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.
 Indicators r-value p-value Decision interpretation
Impact

a. Gender .674 .016 reject Ho significant

b. Position .447 .001 Reject Ho Significant
c. Awareness 1.00 .000 Reject Ho significant
of online
technology
d. Availability .529 .077 accept Ho Not Significant
of online
technology
e. Trial of 1.00 .000 reject Ho Significant
online
technology

Hypothesis

There is no significant relationship between

a. Impact and gender

b. Impact and position
c. Impact and Awareness of online technology
d. Impact and Availability of online technology
e. Impact and trial of online technology

Interpretation

Table readings:

a. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is a significant relationship
between impact and gender of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.
b. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is a significant relationship
between impact and position of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.
c. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is a significant relationship
between impact and awaraness of online technology of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.
d. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is higher than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being accepted. Thus there is no significant relationship
between impact and availability of online technology of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.
 e. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is a significant relationship
between impact and trial of online technology of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.

Indicators r-value p-value Decision interpretation

Trial of online
technology

a. Gender .674 .016 reject Ho significant

b. Position .447 .145 accept Ho not Significant
c. Awareness 1.00 .000 Reject Ho significant
of online
technology
d. Availability .529 .077 accept Ho Not Significant
of online
technology
e. Impact 1.00 .000 reject Ho Significant

Hypothesis

There is no significant relationship between

a. trial of online technology and gender

b. trial of online technology and position
c. trial of online technology and Awareness of online technology
d. trial of online technology and Availability of online technology
e. trial of online technology and Impact

Interpretation

Table readings:

a. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is a significant relationship
between trial of online technology and gender of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.
b. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is higher than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being accepted. Thus there is no significant relationship
between trial of online technology and position of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.
c. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is a significant relationship
between trial of online technology and awareness of online technology of brgy. Secretaries
and treasurers.
d. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is higher than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is no significant relationship
between trial of online technology and availability of online technology of brgy. Secretaries
and treasurers.
e. It can be seen from the table that the p-value is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the null hypothesis is being rejected. Thus there is a significant relationship
between trial of online technology and impact of brgy. Secretaries and treasurers.
Activity 2

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

sex 439 1.58 .494 .024

marital 439 3.37 1.759 .084
op1 435 3.26 1.003 .048
op2 436 2.28 1.111 .053
op3 436 3.70 .975 .047
op4 436 2.26 1.070 .051
op5 436 3.94 .985 .047
op6 436 2.27 1.162 .056

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 0

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

sex 66.906 438 .000 1.579 1.53 1.62

marital 40.168 438 .000 3.371 3.21 3.54
op1 67.881 434 .000 3.264 3.17 3.36
op2 42.942 435 .000 2.284 2.18 2.39
op3 79.218 435 .000 3.700 3.61 3.79
op4 44.101 435 .000 2.259 2.16 2.36
op5 83.491 435 .000 3.940 3.85 4.03
op6 40.728 435 .000 2.266 2.16 2.38