Nool, Nelvin R., Balanquit, Elizabeth P., Ladia, Maria Agnes P., & Corpuz, Niño B. (2018).

Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET Performance of State Universities and Colleges.
Paper presented at the In-house Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.

Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET

Performance of State Universities and Colleges

Nelvin R. Nool
Elizabeth P. Balanquit
Maria Agnes P. Ladia
Niño B. Corpuz
College of Teacher Education, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City, Philippines

Abstract

This quantitative study analyzed the accreditation status of BEEd programs

and LET performance of state universities and colleges (SUCs) in the Philippines.
Using descriptive-correlational research design, the accreditation status and LET
performance of 182 SUC campuses were examined. Data on accreditation status were
obtained from the Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities of the
Philippines (AACCUP) while data on LET performance were obtained from the
Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). Findings showed that most of the BEEd
programs were granted Level II Re-accredited status. Moreover, majority of the SUC
campuses attained good LET performance based on first timers’ passing percentage.
In contrast, nearly all of the campuses had poor performance considering the
repeaters’ passing percentage. Consequently, the SUCs had a poor overall
performance. Furthermore, Spearman rank correlation coefficient revealed that
accreditation status is positively and significantly related to LET performance. This
implies that programs with higher accreditation status tend to achieve better LET
performance while programs with lower accreditation status will likely attain lower
passing percentage in the licensure examination.

Keywords: accreditation status, LET performance, state universities and colleges

1
Nool, Nelvin R., Balanquit, Elizabeth P., Ladia, Maria Agnes P., & Corpuz, Niño B. (2018).
Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET Performance of State Universities and Colleges.
Paper presented at the In-house Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.

INTRODUCTION

Higher education institutions continuously seek ways to improve the quality

of instruction and other related services provided to students. With the highly
competitive nature of educational institutions nowadays, schools have to keep on
finding ways to surpass other institutions’ academic and related achievements. One of
these ways is through accreditation.

According to CMO No. 1, series of 2005, accreditation refers to “a process for

assessing and upgrading the educational quality of higher education institutions and
programs through self-evaluation and peer judgment.” The Accrediting Agency of
Chartered Colleges and Universities of the Philippines (AACCUP) was established in
1989 to develop a mechanism of, and conduct the evaluation of curricular programs
and institutions of state universities and colleges (SUC). AACCUP accreditation
includes ten areas namely: (1) Vision, Mission, Goals and Objectives, (2) Faculty, (3)
Curriculum and Instruction, (4) Support to Students, (5) Research, (6) Extension and
Community Development, (7) Library, (8) Physical Facilities, (9) Laboratories, and
(10) Administration.

Accreditation has numerous functions. It is one of the criteria in normative

financing (Manasan, 2012; Padua, 2003), in the selection of Center of Excellence and
Center of Development in teacher education (CMO 16, s. 2015); and in SUC leveling
(DBM and CHED Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2016).

Does a higher level of accreditation lead to better performance in the licensure

examination? Affirmative responses to this query have been found in the field of
nursing (Gutierrez, 2016; Ong, Palompon & Bañico, 2012; Rosales, et al., 2014),
accountancy and engineering (Galenzoga, 2016; Llanes, 2009). However, there is a
dearth of empirical evidence on the relationship of accreditation status and
performance in the licensure examination for teachers. Hence, this study was
conducted to address this gap in research literature and to provide basis for school
administrators in making decisions concerning program accreditation.

This study aimed to determine the accreditation status of BEEd programs and
LET performance of state universities and colleges in the Philippines. Specifically, it
intended to: describe the accreditation status of BEEd programs, examine the LET
performance of the SUCs, and determine the relationship between accreditation status
and LET performance.

2
Nool, Nelvin R., Balanquit, Elizabeth P., Ladia, Maria Agnes P., & Corpuz, Niño B. (2018).
Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET Performance of State Universities and Colleges.
Paper presented at the In-house Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.

METHODOLOGY

This quantitative study employed correlational research design to examine the

accreditation status of BEEd programs and LET performance of state universities and
colleges in the Philippines. The study included 182 campuses of SUCs that offer
Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd) programs. The data on the accreditation
status of these campuses as of 2015 were obtained from the official website of the
AACCUP. Data on the LET performance were obtained from the official website of
the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). LET performance refers to the
percentage of examinees who passed the LET. The three-year LET performance of
the SUCs including 2013, 2014 and 2015 was used to avoid fluctuation if only 2015
performance was considered. The examinees are also classified as first timers or
repeaters. Table 1 presents the distribution of examinees. Of the 101,516 LET takers,
47% were first timers while 53% were repeaters. From the 48,112 first timers, 66.3%
passed while 17.9% of the 53,404 repeaters passed the LET. Overall, 40.8% of the
101,516 examinees passed the LET.

Table 1. Distribution of Examinees

Type of Examinees No. of Takers % No. of Passers % Passed

First timers 48,112 47% 31,881 66.3%
Repeaters 53,404 53% 9,543 17.9%
Overall 101,516 100% 41,424 40.8%

LET performance was described using the following categories, which was
partly based from PRC.
 Best – 80% to 100% passing rate
 Better – 75% to 79.99% passing rate
 Good – 65% to 74.99% passing rate
 Average –50% to 64.99% passing rate
 Poor – 20% to 49.99% passing rate
 Very poor – less than 20% passing rate

Frequency count and percentage were used to describe the accreditation status
and LET performance of SUCs. Scatter diagrams were drawn to examine if there

3
Nool, Nelvin R., Balanquit, Elizabeth P., Ladia, Maria Agnes P., & Corpuz, Niño B. (2018).
Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET Performance of State Universities and Colleges.
Paper presented at the In-house Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.

were outliers or values that deviate from the cluster of data. Since there were outliers
in the accreditation status and LET performance and the accreditation status is in
ordinal level of measurement, Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) was utilized
to establish the relationship between the number of takers and LET performance, as
well as between accreditation status and LET performance (Bluman, 2009). The
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and MS Excel were used in the
computation of data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Accreditation Status of BEEd Programs

The accreditation status of the BEEd programs among SUCs as of 2015 is

presented in Figure 1. It can be seen in the figure that more than one-fourth of the
BEEd programs (n = 49, or 26.9%) were awarded Level II Re-accredited status.
Nearly an equal number of programs were granted Candidate status (n = 39 or
21.4%), Level I accredited status (n = 38 or 20.9%) and Level III Re-accredited status
(n = 37or 20.3%).

Level IV Re-accredited 3

Level IV Qualified 7

Level III Re-accredited 37

Level III Qualified 9

Level II Re-accredited 49

Level I Accredited 38

Candidate 39

Figure 1. Accreditation Status of BEEd programs

Only the BEEd program of Central Luzon State University, Cebu Normal
University and West Visayas State University were awarded Level IV Re-accredited
status. A few programs were qualified for Level III (n = 9 or 4.9%) and for Level IV

4
Nool, Nelvin R., Balanquit, Elizabeth P., Ladia, Maria Agnes P., & Corpuz, Niño B. (2018).
Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET Performance of State Universities and Colleges.
Paper presented at the In-house Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.

(n = 7 or 3.8%). This shows that majority of the programs were granted Level II Re-
accredited or lower accreditation status.

LET Performance of the SUCs

The performance of the 182 SUC campuses based on the passing percentage
of the first timers in the LET elementary level is displayed in Figure 2.

66

35 35
28
16
2

Very poor Poor Average Good Better Best

Figure 2. First timers’ LET Performance

The graph represents a negatively skewed distribution, which means that most
of the TEIs acquired a high level of performance. In fact, 66 or 36.3% of the
campuses attained an average performance with passing percentage of 50.00% to
64.99%.

Meanwhile, the same number (n = 35) of campuses obtained best and good
performance. Table 2 presents the SUCs that achieved best performance based on
first timers’ passing percentage. Majority (n = 28 or 80%) of the best performing
SUCs had at least 100 takers. To determine whether the number of takers was related
to the passing percentage, Spearman rank order correlation was computed. Results
showed that there was a positive and significant relationship between the number of
examinees and LET performance (rs = .177, p = .017, t = 2.41, df = 180). This
indicates that SUCs with more first timers tend to achieve higher performance.
Similar findings were found in other studies (e.g. Nool, 2017; Nool & Ladia, 2017a).

5
Nool, Nelvin R., Balanquit, Elizabeth P., Ladia, Maria Agnes P., & Corpuz, Niño B. (2018).
Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET Performance of State Universities and Colleges.
Paper presented at the In-house Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.

Table 2. Best Performing SUCs based on First timers’ Passing Percentage

No. of No. of %
SUC Campuses
Takers Passers Passed
Cavite State University 50 49 98.00
Bohol Island State University-Tagbilaran 225 219 97.33
Philippine Normal University-Manila 757 730 96.43
Aurora State College of Technology 67 63 94.03
West Visayas State University-La Paz 265 249 94.02
Mindanao State Univ-Iligan Institute of Tech 241 226 93.78
Bohol Island State University-Bilar 143 132 92.21
Cebu Technological University-Argao 199 180 90.45
Philippine Normal University-Agusan 348 313 89.94
Ifugao State University-Lamut 148 133 89.86
Cebu Normal University 1003 897 89.43
Bohol Island State University-Clarin 193 172 89.12
University of Northern Philippines-Vigan 55 49 88.18
Catanduanes State University-Virac 400 352 88.00
University of Southeastern Philippines-Tagum 295 258 87.46
Southern Luzon State University-Lucban 276 240 86.96
Negros Oriental State University-Dumaguete 275 239 86.91
Bohol Island State University-Calape 77 67 86.71
Bohol Island State University-Candijay 115 99 86.09
Philippine Normal University-Cadiz City 444 382 86.04
North Luzon Philippines State College-Candon 127 109 85.83
Pangasinan State University-Bayambang 419 353 84.25
Cebu Technological University-Tuburan 111 93 83.78
Philippine Normal University-Isabela 509 425 83.50
Palawan State University-Puerto Princesa 212 177 83.49
Mariano Marcos State University-Laoag 627 523 83.41
Cavite State University-Naic 36 30 83.33
Cebu Technological University-Danao 161 134 83.23
University of Southeastern Davao City 460 382 83.04
Batanes State College 23 19 82.61
Benguet State University-La Trinidad 514 424 82.49
Bicol University-Polangui 226 183 80.97
Tarlac College of Agriculture 270 218 80.74
Carlos A. Hilado Memorial State College-Talisay 480 386 80.42
Guimaras State College 65 52 80.00

6
Nool, Nelvin R., Balanquit, Elizabeth P., Ladia, Maria Agnes P., & Corpuz, Niño B. (2018).
Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET Performance of State Universities and Colleges.
Paper presented at the In-house Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.

On the other hand, Figure 3 illustrates that the repeaters’ performance

resembles a positively skewed distribution wherein most of the campuses had low
passing percentages. Majority (n = 102 or 56.0%) of the campuses had poor
performance and 75 or 41.2% had very poor performance.

102

75

3 0 1 1

Very poor Poor Average Good Better Best

Figure 3. Repeaters’ LET Performance

Table 3 shows the institutions with at least 50% passing percentage among the
repeaters. These five SUCs had at most 28 repeaters. This suggests that few repeaters
may lead to high passing percentage. To verify this claim, Spearman rank correlation
coefficient was computed. Results revealed that there is a negative and significant
relationship between the number of repeaters and LET performance (rs = –.290,
p = .000, t = –4.06, df = 180). This implies that SUCs with few repeaters tend to
attain high performance, while those with many repeaters will likely have low
passing percentage.

Table 3. SUCs with at least 50% Passing Percentage among the Repeaters
No. of No. of %
SUC Campuses
Takers Passers Passed
University of Rizal System-Antipolo 6 5 83%
Aurora State College of Technology 13 10 77%
Jose Rizal Memorial State University-Katipunan 12 7 58%
North Luzon Philippines State College-Candon 22 12 55%
Carlos Hilado State College of Fisheries-Binalbagan 28 15 54%

7
Nool, Nelvin R., Balanquit, Elizabeth P., Ladia, Maria Agnes P., & Corpuz, Niño B. (2018).
Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET Performance of State Universities and Colleges.
Paper presented at the In-house Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.

Combining the passers in the 182 campuses gives a passing percentage of

17.9%, which indicates a very poor performance. This result bears similarity to
previous studies (e.g. Ladia, 2014; Nool & Ladia, 2012; Nool et al., 2012).

Figure 4 displays the overall LET performance which reflects a positively

skewed distribution wherein most of the campuses got low passing percentages. The
figure shows that 115 or 63.2% of the campuses had poor performance; 31 or 17.0%
had average performance; 18 or 9.9% had good performance; and eight or 4.4% had
very poor performance.

115

31
18
8 4 6

Very poor Poor Average Good Better Best

Figure 4. Overall LET Performance

The six SUCs with the best performance included Bohol Island State
University-Tagbilaran (94.2%), Aurora State College of Technology (91.3%), West
Visayas State University-La Paz (91.0%), Philippine Normal University-Manila
(90.8%), North Luzon Philippines State College-Candon (81.2%) and Cebu
Technological University-Argao (81.0%). Three of these SUCs are in Visayas and the
other three are in Luzon. The four SUC campuses that attained better performance
were University of Rizal System-Antipolo (78.0%), University of Southeastern
Philippines-Tagum (77.0%), Bohol Island State University-Bilar (76.0%) and Bohol
Island State University-Clarin (75.7%).

Data inspection revealed that the best and better performing SUCs had
relatively fewer examinees compared to poor performing ones. Results of the
Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs = –.556, p = .000, t = –8.98, df = 180)
indicates that the number of examinees is negatively and significantly related to LET

8
Nool, Nelvin R., Balanquit, Elizabeth P., Ladia, Maria Agnes P., & Corpuz, Niño B. (2018).
Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET Performance of State Universities and Colleges.
Paper presented at the In-house Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.

performance. This means that SUCs with more LET examinees tend to attain lower
performance, while SUCs with fewer LET takers tend to achieve higher passing
percentage.

As a whole, about two-thirds (n = 123 or 67.6%) of the campuses had less

than 50% passing percentage among the repeaters. The combined passing percentage
of 40.8% reflects poor performance. Since 53% of the total examinees were repeaters,
their very poor performance pulled down the good performance of the first timers
which results to a poor overall performance. Similar results have been found in earlier
studies (e.g. Ladia, 2014; Nool & Ladia, 2017; Nool et al., 2012, 2017).

Relationship between Accreditation Status and LET Performance

Figure 5 shows the LET performance of the campuses with different

accreditation status based on first timers’ passing percentage. The figure clearly
displays that the programs with the highest accreditation, i.e. Level IV Re-accredited
status had also the best LET performance (88.4%). Programs qualified for Level IV
and those with Level III Re-accredited status attained better performance. In contrast,
the programs with the lowest accreditation status had the least passing percentage
(54.6%).

Level IV Re-accredited 88.4

Level IV Qualified 74.4

Level III Re-accredited 72.6

Level III Qualified 62.7

Level II Re-accredited 63.3

Level I Accredited 62.2

Candidate 54.6

Figure 5. First timers’ LET Performance by Accreditation Status

The graph also illustrates that the higher the accreditation status, the better the
LET performance. To verify this assumption, Spearman rank correlation coefficient

9
Nool, Nelvin R., Balanquit, Elizabeth P., Ladia, Maria Agnes P., & Corpuz, Niño B. (2018).
Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET Performance of State Universities and Colleges.
Paper presented at the In-house Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.

was computed. Table 4 shows that there is a significant correlation between the
accreditation status and LET performance of the first timers (rs = .354, p = .000,
t = 5.07, df = 180). This implies that programs with high accreditation status likely
produce new graduates who achieve high passing percentage, while those with low
accreditation status tend to have low performance.

Table 4. Relationship between Accreditation Status and LET Performance

Type of Examinees Spearman rho p value Inference

First timers .354 .000 Significant
Repeaters –.045 .549 Not significant
Overall .158 .034 Significant

Figure 6 presents the LET performance of the campuses with different

accreditation status based on repeaters’ passing percentage. The figure shows that the
programs with Level IV Re-accredited status had the highest performance (28.0%)
followed by the programs qualified for Level IV (24.1%). However, these passing
percentages reflect poor performance. Likewise, programs with lower accreditation
status had very poor performance, namely: Level I accredited (19.9%), Level III
Qualified (18.8%), Level II Re-accredited (17.4%), Level III Re-accredited (17.2%)
and Candidate status (16.3%).

Level IV Re-accredited 28.0

Level IV Qualified 24.1

Level III Re-accredited 17.2

Level III Qualified 18.8

Level II Re-accredited 17.4

Level I Accredited 19.9

Candidate 16.3

Figure 6. Repeaters’ LET Performance by Accreditation Status

10
Nool, Nelvin R., Balanquit, Elizabeth P., Ladia, Maria Agnes P., & Corpuz, Niño B. (2018).
Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET Performance of State Universities and Colleges.
Paper presented at the In-house Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.

It can be observed in the figure that the programs with different accreditation
status have almost similar performance based on repeaters’ passing percentage. The
Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs = –.045, p = .549, t = –0.60, df = 180) in
Table 4 indicates that there is no significant correlation between the accreditation
status and LET performance of the repeaters. This means that programs with different
accreditation status likely to have similar performance among the repeaters.

Figure 7 shows the overall LET performance of the campuses with different
accreditation status. The figure illustrates that the programs with Level IV Re-
accredited status recorded the highest LET performance (73.7%). Programs qualified
for Level IV had average performance (53.2%). Meanwhile, programs with lower
accreditation status had also low passing percentages namely: Level III Re-accredited
(41.9%), Level I accredited (41.7%), Level III qualified (41.9%), Level II Re-
accredited (38.7%) and Candidate status (32.9%).

Level IV Re-accredited 73.7

Level IV Qualified 53.2

Level III Re-accredited 41.9

Level III Qualified 41.3

Level II Re-accredited 38.7

Level I Accredited 41.7

Candidate 32.9

Figure 7. Overall LET Performance by Accreditation Status

The figure depicts a pattern in the LET performance of programs with varying
accreditation status. It appears that as the accreditation status goes higher, LET
performance also increases. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs = .158,
p = .034, t = 2.14, df = 180) in Table 4 shows confirms that accreditation status is
significantly related to LET performance. Therefore, programs with higher status of
accreditation tend to attain better LET performance, while those with lower
accreditation status will likely have lower passing percentage. This result is consistent
with previous findings (Galenzoga, 2016; Gutierrez, 2016; Ong, Palompon & Bañico,
2012; Rosales, et al., 2014).

11
Nool, Nelvin R., Balanquit, Elizabeth P., Ladia, Maria Agnes P., & Corpuz, Niño B. (2018).
Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET Performance of State Universities and Colleges.
Paper presented at the In-house Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study determined the relationship of accreditation status and LET

performance of state universities and colleges. Most of the 182 BEEd programs in
state universities and colleges in the Philippines were granted Level II re-accredited
status. Majority of the SUC campuses achieved good performance, having two in
every three first timers passed the LET. On the contrary, nearly all of the campuses
had poor performance in terms of repeaters’ passing percentage, wherein only two in
every five repeaters passed the LET. The SUC campuses had a poor overall LET
performance since the good performance of the first timers was adversely affected by
the repeaters’ poor performance.

The repeaters had been performing poorly in the licensure examination. This
causes a negative impact on the overall LET performance. The call for prescribing a
maximum number of taking the LET to three times has to be considered by the PRC.
Like in other licensure examinations, examinees who failed thrice should take
refresher courses from accredited institutions before they are allowed to take the
board examination again.

Performance in licensure examinations constitutes about five percent of the

total points in the SUC leveling (DBM-CHED Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2016). SUCs
with at least 80% passing average in the last three years of board examinations are
given 2.5 points. Considering the overall performance of the SUCs in this study, only
six institutions achieved best performance. The policies and practices of the best
performing SUCs should be explored that will serve as benchmark for other teacher
training institutions.

The status of accreditation is significantly related to the first timers and

overall LET performance. Generally, programs with higher level of accreditation tend
to attain better licensure examination performance, while those with lower level of
accreditation will likely have lower passing percentage. Thus, school administrators
have to continually subject their curricular programs to accreditation in order to
improve the quality of instruction and related services provided to the students to
ensure high performance in the licensure examinations.

12
Nool, Nelvin R., Balanquit, Elizabeth P., Ladia, Maria Agnes P., & Corpuz, Niño B. (2018).
Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET Performance of State Universities and Colleges.
Paper presented at the In-house Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.

Further research should be conducted to examine the influence of

accreditation status on the licensure examination performance of secondary teacher
education programs and other disciplines in tertiary level.

REFERENCES
Balanquit, E.P., M.A.P. Ladia, and S.A. Embesan. (2018). Licensure Examination
Performance of BSEd Graduates. Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.
Balanquit, E.P., M.A.P. Ladia, S.A. Embesan and Y.S. Legaspi. 2015. The Effect of
Remediation on the Performance in Retention Examination of Underachieving
Prospective Secondary Teachers. Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.
Bañez, S.E.S., & C.G. Pardo. 2016. Licensure Examination Performance of BSEd-
Biological and Physical Science Graduates in a State University in Northern
Philippines. Journal of Educational and Human Resource Development, 4,
119-132.
Bluman, A.G. (2009). Elementary Statistics: A Step by Step Approach (7th ed.). New
York: McGraw Hill.
Calingacion, E.F. 2015. 2014 LET Performance of Schools in the Philippines: An
Analysis of Roughness. Prism, 20(1), 21-26.
CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 30 series of 2004. Revised Policies and
Standards for Undergraduate Teacher Education Curriculum.
CMO No. 16, s. 2015. Amendment to CMO No. 26, series of 2007.
CMO No. 17, s. 2016. Designated Centers of Excellence and Centers of Development
for Teacher Education Program.
Corpuz, N.B., S.M.O. David, J.P. Mendoza, and J.Y. Punzalan. 2017. Validation of
the general and professional education areas of the college of education’s
retention examination. University of the Visayas-Journal of Research, 11(1),
69-76.
DBM-CHED Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2016. FY 2016 Leveling Instrument for SUCs
and Guidelines for the Implementation Thereof.
DBM-CHED Joint Circular No. 2, s. 2004. Application of Normative Funding (NF)
In the Allocation of Expenditures to State Universities and Colleges (SUCs)
Starting FY 2005 Budget and Thereafter.
Depamaylo, K.P. 2015. The relationship of college admission test and mock board
examination to the licensure examination for customs brokers. Proceedings
Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 227-232.
Esmeralda, A.B. and Espinosa, J.P. 2015. Teacher education graduates’ performance
as predictor of licensure examination for teachers’ results. JPAIR
Multidisciplinary Research, 21(1), 73-86.

13
Nool, Nelvin R., Balanquit, Elizabeth P., Ladia, Maria Agnes P., & Corpuz, Niño B. (2018).
Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET Performance of State Universities and Colleges.
Paper presented at the In-house Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.

Faltaldo, Ruben E. 2014. Correlates of performance in the licensure examination of

selected public and private teacher institutions. International Journal of
Education and Research, 2(8), 167-176.
Galenzoga, D.M. (2016). Accreditation as a predictor for success in licensure
examinations of state universities and colleges in Eastern Visayas.
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research and Innovations, 4(1),
101-105.
Gono, Exequiel R. 2016. Probabilistic estimation of passing the pharmacist licensure
examination. University of Mindanao International Multidisciplinary
Research Journal, 1(2), 132-139.
Gutierrez, N.P. (2016). Level of accreditation and board performance of the colleges
of nursing in the national capital region. International Education & Research
Journal, 2(5), 21-29.
Hena, R.H., Ballado, R.S., Dalucapas, M.C.C., Ubane, S.C., & Basierto, R.C. 2014.
Variates of the performance of teacher education graduates in the licensure
examination for teachers (LET). International Journal of Interdisciplinary
Research and Innovations, 2(4), 157-163.
Kalaw, M.T.B. 2017. Trend of De La Salle Lipa education graduates’ performance in
the licensure examination for teachers (LET) from 2011 to 2015.
International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 6(2), 138-
149.
Ladia, M.A.P. 2014. Analysis of the LET performance of centers of excellence and
centers of development for teacher education: Implications to policy, practice
and research. International Journal of Engineering Research and
Management, 1(6), 210-220.
Ladia, M.A.P. and Nool, N.R. 2017. Performance in the Licensure Examination of
Teacher Education Institutions in Central Luzon, Philippines. Paper presented
at the Year-End In-House Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State
University, Tarlac City, Philippines.
Ladia, M.A.P., Corpuz, N.B., Embesan, S.A. and Nool, N.R. 2017. Exploring the
Validity of TSU College Admission Test in Predicting Graduates’ LET
Performance. Paper presented at the Year-End In-House Review of
Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City, Philippines.
Llanes, C. C. (2009). Civil engineering licensure examination performance
improvement program: The TIPQC Experience. Philippine Journal of
Engineering Education, 3(1).
Manasan, R. G. (2012). Rationalizing national government subsidies for state
universities and colleges (No. 2012-03). PIDS Discussion Paper Series.

14
Nool, Nelvin R., Balanquit, Elizabeth P., Ladia, Maria Agnes P., & Corpuz, Niño B. (2018).
Does Accreditation Status Matter? Evidence on the LET Performance of State Universities and Colleges.
Paper presented at the In-house Review of Completed Researches, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City.

Montemayor, E.S., Roxas, C.C., and Panayon, V.L. (2009). Mock examination: Its
influence on performance in the licensure examination for teachers. University
of the Cordilleras Research Journal, 1(3), 1-11.
Ong, M., Palompon, D. R., & Bañico, L. (2012). Predictors of nurses’ licensure
examination performance of graduates in Cebu Normal University
Philippines. Asian Journal of Health, 2(1).
Padua, R. (2003). A quality-based normative financing for state higher education
institutions in the Philippines. Journal of Philippine Higher Education
Quality Assurance, 1(1), 71.
Pascua, J.B. and Navalta, J.D. 2011. Determinants of LET performance of the teacher
education graduates in a state university. JPAIR Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6(1), 90-102.
Puertos, J.D. 2015. Performance on the licensure exam for teachers among Liceo De
Cagayan University education graduates. Liceo Journal of Higher Education
Research, 11(1), 119-131.
Rabanal, G.C. 2016. Academic achievement and LET performance of the Bachelor of
Elementary Education graduates, University of Northern Philippines.
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 6(6), 455-461.
Republic Act No. 7836. Teachers’ Professionalization Act of 1994.
Rosales, A., Arugay, Y., Divina Gracia, C., & Palaganas, E. (2014). Analytical study
of the nurses licensure examination performance of graduates of Philippine
colleges of nursing. Philippine Journal of Nursing, 84(1), 4-20.
Rudio, V.O. 2016. Performance of teacher education graduates, DMMMSU-NLUC,
Philippines in the licensure examination CY 2011 to 2013. International
Journal of Educational Science and Research, 6(3), 1-16.
Soriano, H.A.S. 2009. Factors associated with the performance of USM College of
Education graduates in the 2007 licensure examination for teachers. USM
R&D Journal, 17(2), 151-160.
Tarun, I.M. 2017. Prediction models for licensure examination performance using
data mining classifiers for online test and decision support system. Asia
Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 5(3), 10-21.
Visco, D.A. 2015. Predictors of performance in the licensure examination for
teachers of the graduates of higher education institutions in Abra.
International Journal of Management Research and Business Strategy, 4(1),
181-191.

15