Group Members:

Briones, Lyka Mae A. Panganiban, Jeerine Paula C.

Catalla, Angelika L. Ramos, Angelica U.
Cepe, Fatima Fe D. Villanueva, Daisy Din R.
Fernandez, Diofel Rose V. BSA-402

Table 14
Difference on the Respondents’ Engagement to Fur Parenting when grouped according to
Profile
Profile Feeding Petting Shelter Grooming Veterinary
Consultation
(Analysis of Variance)
Age 1 x1=2.95 x1=3.31 x1=3.46 x1=2.99 x1=3.11
2 x2=2.32 x2=3.20 x2=3.28 x2=2.60 x2=2.48
3 x3=3.20 x3=3.20 x3=4.00 x3=3.40 x3=3.40
4 x4=2.10 x4=2.10 x4=2.60 x4=2.20 x4=2.20
5 x5=0.00 x5=0.00 x5=0.00 x5=0.00 x5=0.00

f= 2.913 f= 2.740 f= 2.143 f= 1.013 f= 1.400

p= 0.053 p= 0.064 p=0.119 p=.0.403 p=0.265

(t-test)

Gender 1 x1=2.81 x1= 3.36 x1= 3.57 x1= 3.04 x1= 2.87
2 x2= 2.79 x2= 3.05 x2= 3.21 x2= 2.73 x2= 3.04

t= 0.116 t= 1.375 t= 1.832 t= 1.077 t= -0.545

p= 0.909 p= 0.181 p=.0.078 p= 0.291 p= 0.590

(t-test)
Civil Status 1 x1= 2.86 x1= 3.22 x1= 3.39 x1= 2.86 x1= 2.90
2 x2= 2.40 x2= 3.10 x2= 3.40 x2= 3.05 x2= 2.30

t= 1.232 t= 0.339 t= -0.021 t= -0.321 t= -1.068

p= 0.286 p= 0.751 p= 0.984 p= 0.769 p= 0.334
 (Analysis of Variance)

Monthly 1 x1=2.97 x1=3.10 x1=3.52 x1=2.72 x1=2.83

Household 2 x2=2.70 x2=3.25 x2=3.35 x2=3.03 x2=2.88
Income 3 x3=2.87 x3=3.33 x3=3.20 x3=3.17 x3=3.03
4 x4=2.20 x4=3.40 x4=3.30 x4=2.10 x4=3.20
5 x5=2.60 x5=2.10 x5=3.50 x5=3.30 x5=3.50

f= 0.778 f= 0.199 f= 0.335 f= 1.049 f= 0.298

p=0.549 p=0.936 p=0.852 p=0.401 p=0.876

(Analysis of Variance)
Educationa 1 x1= x1= x1= x1= x1=
l 2 x2= x2= x2= x2= x2=
Attainment 3 x3= x3= x3= x3= x3=
4
x4= x4= x4= x4= x4=
5
6 x5= x5= x5= x5= x5=
7 x6= x6= x6= x6= x6=
8 x7= x7= x7= x7= x7=
x8= x8= x8= x8= x8=

f= f= f= f= f=
p= p= p= p= p=
*Significant @ 0.05

AGE= NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE EXISTS

NOT SIGNIFICANT
REJECTED
 

NULL HYPOTHESIS There is no significant difference on the fur parenting

(Ho): style in terms of feeding when grouped according to age.

ALTERNATIVE There is a significant difference on the fur parenting style

HYPOTHESIS (Ha): in terms of feeding when grouped according to age.

With p-value of 0.053 which is equal to the level of

DECISION: significance 0.05, the null hypothesis stating that there is
no significant difference on the fur parenting style in
 terms of feeding when grouped according to age is
rejected.

With mean of 3.2, even though there is only one

respondent whose age is between 41 to 50 years old still,
this respondent is more engaged in feeding as their fur
CONCLUSION: parenting style than those respondents in age 21 to 30
years old with mean of 2.95. Therefore, there is a
significant difference on the fur parenting style in terms of
feeding when grouped according to age.

NOT SIGNIFICANT
FAILED TO REJECT  
 

NULL HYPOTHESIS There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style

(Ho): in terms of petting when grouped according to age.

ALTERNATIVE There is a significant difference on the fur parenting style

HYPOTHESIS (Ha): in terms of petting when grouped according to age.

With p-value of 0.063 which is greater than the level of

significance 0.05, we failed to reject the null hypothesis
DECISION: stating that there is no significant difference on the fur
parenting style in terms of petting when grouped
according to age.

There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style

CONCLUSION:
in terms of petting when grouped according to age.

NOT SIGNIFICANT
FAILED TO REJECT
 
NULL HYPOTHESIS There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style
(Ho): in terms of shelter when grouped according to age.
 ALTERNATIVE There is a significant difference on the fur parenting style in
HYPOTHESIS (Ha): terms of shelter when grouped according to age.

With p-value of 0.119 which is greater than the level of

significance 0.05, we failed to reject the null hypothesis
DECISION: stating that there is no significant difference on the fur
parenting style in terms of shelter when grouped according
to age.

There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style

CONCLUSION:
in terms of shelter when grouped according to age.

NO SIGNIFICANCE
FAILED TO REJECT
 

NULL HYPOTHESIS There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style

(Ho): in terms of grooming when grouped according to age.

ALTERNATIVE There is a significant difference on the fur parenting style

HYPOTHESIS (Ha): in terms of grooming when grouped according to age.

With p-value of 0.402 which is greater than the level of

significance 0.05, we failed to reject the null hypothesis
DECISION: stating that there is no significant difference on the fur
parenting style in terms of grooming when grouped
according to age.

There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style

CONCLUSION:
in terms of grooming when grouped according to age.

NO SIGNIFICANCE
FAILED TO REJECT
 
 There is no significant difference on the fur parenting
NULL HYPOTHESIS
style in terms of veterinary consultation when grouped
(Ho):
according to age .

There is a significant difference on the fur parenting style

ALTERNATIVE
in terms of veterinary consultation when grouped
HYPOTHESIS (Ha):
according to age .

With p-value of 0.265 which is greater than the level of

significance 0.05, we failed to reject the null hypothesis
DECISION: stating that there is no significant difference on the fur
parenting style in terms of veterinary consultation when
grouped according to age.

There is no significant difference on the fur parenting

CONCLUSION: style in terms of veterinary consultation when grouped
according to age .

Income - Table 14 = NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE EXISTS

NO SIGNIFICANCE
FAILED TO REJECT
 

There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style

NULL HYPOTHESIS
in terms of feeding when grouped according to monthly
(Ho):
household income.

There is a significant difference on the fur parenting style

ALTERNATIVE
in terms of feeding when grouped according to monthly
HYPOTHESIS (Ha):
household income.

With p-value of 0.549 which is greater to the level of

significance 0.05, we failed to reject the null hypothesis
DECISION: stating that there is no significant difference on the fur
parenting style in terms of feeding when grouped
according to monthly household income is rejected.

CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style

in terms of petting when grouped according to monthly
 household income.

NO SIGNIFICANCE
FAILED TO REJECT
 

There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style

NULL HYPOTHESIS
in terms of petting when grouped according to monthly
(Ho):
household income

There is a significant difference on the fur parenting style

ALTERNATIVE
in terms of petting when grouped according to monthly
HYPOTHESIS (Ha):
household income .

With p-value of 0.936 which is greater than the level of

significance 0.05, we failed to reject the null hypothesis
DECISION: stating that there is no significant difference on the fur
parenting style in terms of petting when grouped according
to monthly household income.

There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style

CONCLUSION: in terms of petting when grouped according to monthly
household income.

NO SIGNIFICANCE
FAILED TO REJECT
 

There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style in

NULL HYPOTHESIS
terms of shelter when grouped according to monthly
(Ho):
household income .

There is a significant difference on the fur parenting style in

ALTERNATIVE
terms of shelter when grouped according to monthly
HYPOTHESIS (Ha):
household income .

With p-value of 0.852 which is greater than the level of

DECISION: significance 0.05, we failed to reject the null hypothesis
stating that there is no significant difference on the fur
 parenting style in terms of shelter when grouped according
to monthly household income
There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style in
CONCLUSION: terms of shelter when grouped according to monthly
household income

NOT SIGNIFICANCE
REJECTED
 

There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style

NULL HYPOTHESIS
in terms of grooming when grouped according to monthly
(Ho):
household income

There is a significant difference on the fur parenting style

ALTERNATIVE
in terms of grooming when grouped according to monthly
HYPOTHESIS (Ha):
household income

With p-value of 0.401 which is less than to the level of

significance 0.05, the null hypothesis stating that there is
DECISION: no significant difference on the fur parenting style in terms
of feeding when grouped according to monthly household
income is rejected.

There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style

CONCLUSION: in terms of grooming when grouped according to monthly
household income

NO SIGNIFICANCE
FAILED TO REJECT
 

There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style

NULL HYPOTHESIS
in terms of veterinary consultation when grouped
(Ho):
according to monthly household income

There is a significant difference on the fur parenting style

ALTERNATIVE
in terms of veterinary consultation when grouped
HYPOTHESIS (Ha):
according to monthly household income .

DECISION: With p-value of 0.876 which is greater than the level of

 significance 0.05, we failed to reject the null hypothesis
stating that there is no significant difference on the fur
parenting style in terms of veterinary consultation when
grouped according to monthly household income

There is no significant difference on the fur parenting style

CONCLUSION: in terms of veterinary consultation when grouped
according to age .

5. Is there a significant difference on the stress level when grouped according to

profile?
Table 15
Difference on the Respondents’ Engagement on the Stress Level when grouped according
to Profile
Profile Anxiety Irritability Restlessness Being Being
Overwhelmed Unfocused
(Analysis of Variance)
Age 1 x1=2.87 x1=2.62 x1=2.65 x1=2.67 x1=2.62
2 x2=2.40 x2=2.04 x2=2.16 x2=2.08 x2=2.08
3 x3=1.00 x3=1.00 x3=1.20 x3=1.60 x3=1.00
4 x4=2.10 x4=2.10 x4=1.90 x4=2.10 x4=1.20
5 x5=0.00 x5=0.00 x5=0.00 x5=0.00 x5= 0.00

f=3.189 f=2.121 f=1.865 f=1.735 f=4.914

p=0.040 p=0.121 p=1.160 p=0.184 p=0.007

(t-test)
Gender 1 x1=2.79 x1= 2.56 x1= 2.52 x1= 2.56 x1= 2.40
 2 x2= 2.57 x2= 2.32 x2= 2.43 x2= 2.44 x2= 2.37

t= 0.747 t= 0.792 t= 0.305 t= 0.436 t= 0.091

p= 0.462 p= 0.435 p=.0.763 p= 0.666 p= 0.928

(t-test)
Civil Status 1 x1= 2.78 x1= 2.59 x1= 2.61 x1= 2.61 x1= 2.54
2 x2= 2.05 x2= 1.45 x2= 1.60 x2= 1.80 x2= 1.40

t= 1.871 t= 5.010 t= 4.458 t= 2.856 t= 3.615

p= 0.135 p= 0.001 p= 0.001 p= 0.036 p= 0.015

(Analysis of Variance)
Monthly 1 x1=2.60 x1=2.65 x1=2.51 x1=2.56 x1=2.56
Household 2 x2=2.47 x2=2.10 x2=2.30 x2=2.42 x2=2.17
Income 3 x3=2.90 x3=2.60 x3=2.50 x3=2.30 x3=2.30
4 x4=2.70 x4=2.40 x4=2.90 x4=3.00 x4=3.10
5 x5=2.80 x5=2.10 x5=2.30 x5=2.50 x5=1.70

f=0.274 f= 0.644 f= 0.222 f=0.346 f=1.134

p=0.891 p=0.636 p=0.923 p=0.844 p=0.362

(Analysis of Variance)
Educationa 1 x1= 1.60 x1= 2.40 x1=2.20 x1=2.00 x1=1.40
l 2 x2=0.00 x2=0.00 x2=0.00 x2=0.00 x2=0.00
Attainment 3 x3=3.13 x3=2.33 x3=3.26 x3=3.06 x3=3.20
4
x4=2.13 x4=2.13 x4=2.00 x4=2.20 x4=2.60
5
6 x5=2.84 x5=2.64 x5=2.64 x5=2.74 x5=2.32
7 x6=2.73 x6=2.53 x6=2.46 x6=2.33 x6=2.24
8 x7=2.60 x7=1.80 x7=1.60 x7=2.20 x7=1.00
 x8=0.00 x8=0.00 x8=0.00 x8=0.00 x8=0.00

f=1.438 f=0.391 f=1.357 f=0.962 f=2.077

p=0.246 p=0.849 p=0.274 p=0.460 p=0.103
*Significant @ 0.05

 Gender: No significant difference exist

 Civil Status: No significant difference exist in terms of anxiety and there is significant
different exist on the rest.

Significant Difference on the Stress Level when grouped according to Age

Anxiety
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of anxiety when grouped
according to age.
Ha: There is significant difference on the stress level in terms of anxiety when grouped
according to age.
Decision: With p-value of 0.040 which is less than to the level of significance 0.05, the null
hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of anxiety
when grouped according to age is rejected.
Conclusion: There is significant difference on the stress level in terms of anxiety when grouped
according to age.

Irritability
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of irritability when grouped
according to age.
Ha: There is significant difference on the stress level in terms of irritability when grouped
according to age.
Decision: With p-value of 0.121 which is greater than to the level of significance 0.05, the null
hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of irritability
when grouped according to age is accepted.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of irritability when
grouped according to age.

Restlessness
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of restlessness when grouped
according to age.
Ha: There is significant difference on the stress level in terms of restlessness when grouped
according to age.
Decision: With p-value of 0.160 which is greater than to the level of significance 0.05, we failed
to reject the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the stress level in
terms of restlessness when grouped according to age.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of restlessness when
grouped according to age.

Overwhelmed
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of being overwhelmed when
grouped according to age.
Ha: There is significant difference on the stress level in terms of being overwhelmed when
grouped according to age.
Decision: With p-value of 0.184 which is greater than to the level of significance 0.05, we failed
to reject the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the stress level in
terms of restlessness when grouped according to age.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of being overwhelmed
when grouped according to age.

Unfocused
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of being unfocused when
grouped according to age.
Ha: There is significant difference on the stress level in terms of being unfocused when grouped
according to age.
Decision: With p-value of 0.007 which is less than to the level of significance 0.05, the null
hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of being
unfocused when grouped according to age is rejected.
Conclusion: There is significant difference on the stress level in terms of being unfocused when
grouped according to age.

Significant Difference on the Stress Level when grouped according to Gender

Anxiety
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Anxiety when grouped
according to gender.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of Anxiety when grouped
according to gender.
Decision: With p-value of 0.462 which is greater than the level of significance of 0.05. The null
hypothesis stating there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of anxiety when
grouped according to gender is failed to reject.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Anxiety when
grouped according to gender.

Irritability
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Irritability when grouped
according to gender.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of Irritability when grouped
according to gender.
Decision: With p-value of 0.435 which is greater than the level of significance of 0.05. The null
hypothesis stating there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Irritability
when grouped according to gender is failed to reject.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Irritability when
grouped according to gender.

Restlessness
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Restlessness when grouped
according to gender.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of Restlessness when grouped
according to gender.
Decision: With p-value of 0.763 which is greater than the level of significance of 0.05. The null
hypothesis stating there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Restlessness
when grouped according to gender is failed to reject.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Restlessness when
grouped according to gender.

Overwhelmed
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Overwhelmed when grouped
according to gender.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of Overwhelmed when grouped
according to gender.
Decision: With p-value of 0.666 which is greater than the level of significance of 0.05. The null
hypothesis stating there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Overwhelmed
when grouped according to gender is failed to reject.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Overwhelmed when
grouped according to gender.

Unfocused
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Unfocused when grouped
according to gender.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of Unfocused when grouped
according to gender.
Decision: With p-value of 0.928 which is greater than the level of significance of 0.05. The null
hypothesis stating there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Unfocused
when grouped according to gender is failed to reject.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Unfocused when
grouped according to gender.

Significant Difference on the Stress Level when grouped according to Civil

Status

Anxiety
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Anxiety when grouped
according to civil status.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of Anxiety when grouped
according to civil status.
Decision: With p-value of 0.135 which is greater than the level of significance of 0.05. The null
hypothesis stating there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of anxiety when
grouped according to civil status is failed to reject.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Anxiety when
grouped according to civil status.

Irritability
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Irritability when grouped
according to civil status.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of Irritability when grouped
according to civil status.
Decision: With p-value of 0.001 which is less than the level of significance of 0.05. The null
hypothesis stating there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Irritability
when grouped according to civil status is rejected.
Conclusion: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of Irritability when
grouped according to civil status. With means equal 2.59, it shows that single respondents’
experiences more irritability than married respondents with mean of 1.45.

Restlessness
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Restlessness when grouped
according to civil status.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of Restlessness when grouped
according to civil status.
Decision: With p-value of 0.001 which is less than the level of significance of 0.05. The null
hypothesis stating there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Restlessness
when grouped according to civil status is rejected.
Conclusion: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of Irritability when
grouped according to civil status. With means equal 2.61, it shows that single respondents’
experiences more Restlessness than married respondents with mean of 1.60.

Overwhelmed
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Overwhelmed when grouped
according to civil status.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of Overwhelmed when grouped
according to civil status.
Decision: With p-value of 0.036 which is less than the level of significance of 0.05. The null
hypothesis stating there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Overwhelmed
when grouped according to civil status is rejected.
Conclusion: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of Irritability when
grouped according to civil status. With means equal 2.61, it shows that single respondents’
experiences are being more Overwhelmed than married respondents with mean of 1.80.

Unfocused
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Unfocused when grouped
according to civil status.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of Unfocused when grouped
according to civil status.
Decision: With p-value of 0.036 which is less than the level of significance of 0.05. The null
hypothesis stating there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of Unfocused
when grouped according to civil status is rejected.
Conclusion: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of Irritability when
grouped according to civil status. With means equal 2.54, it shows that single respondents’
experiences are being more Unfocused than married respondents with mean of 1.40.

Significant Difference on the Stress Level when grouped according to Monthly

Income

Anxiety
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of anxiety when grouped
according to monthly household income.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of anxiety when grouped
according to monthly household income.
Decision: With p-value of 0.891 which is greater to the level of significance 0.05, we failed to
reject the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms
of anxiety when grouped according to monthly household income.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of anxiety when
grouped according to monthly household income.

Irritability
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of irritability when grouped
according to monthly household income.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of irritability when grouped
according to monthly household income.
Decision: With p-value of 0.636 which is greater to the level of significance 0.05, we failed to
reject the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms
of irritability when grouped according to monthly household income.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of irritability when
grouped according to monthly household income.

Restlessness
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of restlessness when grouped
according to monthly household income.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of restlessness when grouped
according to monthly household income.
Decision: With p-value of 0.923 which is greater to the level of significance 0.05, we failed to
reject the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms
of restlessness when grouped according to monthly household income.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of restlessness when
grouped according to monthly household income.
Overwhelmed
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of being overwhelmed when
grouped according to monthly household income.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of being overwhelmed when
grouped according to monthly household income.
Decision: With p-value of 0.844 which is greater to the level of significance 0.05, we failed to
reject the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms
of being overwhelmed when grouped according to monthly household income.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of being overwhelmed
when grouped according to monthly household income.

Unfocused
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of being unfocused when
grouped according to monthly household income.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of being unfocused when
grouped according to monthly household income.
Decision: With p-value of 0.362 which is greater to the level of significance 0.05, we failed to
reject the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms
of unfocused when grouped according to monthly household income.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of being unfocused
when grouped according to monthly household income.

Significant Difference on the Stress Level when grouped according to

Educational Attainment

Anxiety
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of anxiety when grouped
according to educational attainment.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of anxiety when grouped
according to educational attainment.
Decision: With p-value of 0.246 which is greater to the level of significance 0.05, we failed to
reject the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms
of anxiety when grouped according to educational attainment.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of anxiety when
grouped according to educational attainment.
Irritability
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of irritability when grouped
according to educational attainment.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of irritability when grouped
according to educational attainment.
Decision: With p-value of 0.849 which is greater to the level of significance 0.05, we failed to
reject the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms
of irritability when grouped according to educational attainment.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of irritability when
grouped according to educational attainment.

Restlessness
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of restlessness when grouped
according to educational attainment.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of restlessness when grouped
according to educational attainment.
Decision: With p-value of 0.274 which is greater to the level of significance 0.05, we failed to
reject the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms
of restlessness when grouped according to educational attainment.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of restlessness when
grouped according to educational attainment.

Overwhelmed
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of being overwhelmed when
grouped according to educational attainment.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of being overwhelmed when
grouped according to educational attainment.
Decision: With p-value of 0.460 which is greater to the level of significance 0.05, we failed to
reject the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms
of being overwhelmed when grouped according to educational attainment.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of being overwhelmed
when grouped according to educational attainment.

Unfocused
Ho: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of being unfocused when
grouped according to educational attainment.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the stress level in terms of when being unfocused
grouped according to educational attainment.
Decision: With p-value of 0.103 which is greater to the level of significance 0.05, we failed to
reject the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the stress level in terms
of being unfocused when grouped according to educational attainment.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference on the stress level in terms of being unfocused
when grouped according to educational attainment.