PLS SEM of The DDDM of HEI Leaders Final Paper

1
UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL
INTRODUCTION
The challenge for leaders is to use data, not as a surveillance activity but in the service of
improvement. We propose that the essence of accountability is looking forward, using data to
inform judgments about current performance and formulate plans for reasonable actions
(Earl & Katz, 2002).
The concept of quality management has evolved over the years. Taking root from
the principles of scientific management that were planted in the United States industry in
the 1920‘s and its further development in Japan in the 1940‘s, quality management has
undergone further conceptual changes. Quality, today, represents a philosophy, a system of
methodologies and practices, and an ongoing commitment to business excellence that
encompasses all issues – and engages all individuals – within an organization (PP&S White
Paper, n.d.). These principles are embodied in the philosophy and systemic approach to
organizational quality called total quality management.
Not only has the concept of quality and quality management evolved over the years.
The criteria for quality have also undergone changes in order to remain relevant vis-a-vis
the structural, economic and social changes brought about by globalization and
technological advancements. Quality criteria, defined in Business Dictionary.com as
―characteristics of a good or services that determine whether it meets the express and
implied needs of its customers‖, have been streamlined and simplified. In the case of the
Baldridge Award Quality Criteria, it evolved from a primary emphasis on product and service
quality assurance in the late 1980‘s, to a broad focus on performance excellence in a global
marketplace in the late 1990‘s.‖ One of the notable shifts in the criteria evolution is the shift
from data analysis of quality efforts to an aggregate, integrated organizational review of key
company data (Evans & Lindsay, 2007). Thus, the ―by-word‖ on the shifts in quality
management decision-making is ―data‖.
Educational institutions, due to their nature, possess a massive wealth of data which
allows them to comply with quality criteria. As such, data is readily available for accrediting
bodies and quality certification agencies, school boards, education specialists and education
researchers. In pursuit of quality, these data serve as basis for program accreditation or
recognition and for institutional planning and development.
2
The increasing demand for accountability is increasingly pushing school leaders to

explore more data and do more sophisticated analyses (Mingchu, 2008). There is an
emerging field of practice in school leadership called data-driven decision making (DDDM)
whose central focus is on education policy and practice. In the United States, various
schools have immersed themselves in a data-driven culture defined as ―a workplace
environment that employs a consistent, repeatable approach to tactical and strategic
decision-making through emphatic and empirical data proof ―(Cognizant, 2015). One is St.
Petersburg College in Florida which credits its improved student experience with a
flourishing data culture (Rees, 2015). Also, Kentucky‘s department of education opened a
dialog to make information more usable when it found that its massive data warehouse was
too unwieldy for teachers and administrators to use (Cognizant, 2015).
While an extensive amount of research exists regarding how post-secondary
institutions are organized, less attention has been paid to the specific role that data and
data-related systems play in college and university operations (Hora, Bouwma-Gearhart &
Park, 2014). This is changing rapidly as the wave of accountability that engulfed K–12
schooling begins to influence postsecondary education, with growing pressure on colleges
and universities to embrace a ―culture of evidence‖ (Morest cited in Hora et.al., 2014).
With the policy changes affecting the Philippine educational system such as the shift
to the outcomes-based paradigm, the implementation of the K-12 system, HEI typology and
promoting the thrust for quality as espoused by Commission on Higher Education (CHED)
manifested through the Institutional Sustainability Assessment or ISA among others, higher
education institutions, through their leaders, are mandated to come up with better informed
decisions, the outcome of which affects the entire institution.
Cognizant of the important role of HEIs in social and economic development, the
need for effective decision-making by its administrators is apparent. Today‘s educational
leaders face an environment that requires real-time decisions and accurate, reliable and
timely data. Data-driven decision-making (DDDM) is an approach that values decision
backed-up with verifiable data. It is the collection, examination, analysis, interpretation, and
application of data to inform instructional, administrative, policy, and other decisions and
practice (Wigmore, 2013). The American Association of School Administrators (AASA)
3
enhanced this definition to include school improvement as the objective of DDDM (cited in
Mingchu, 2008).
Proponents of DDDM believe first and foremost that every student can learn and that
it is the duty of every principal and teacher to find the best way possible to make sure this
happens. Consequently, proponents of DDDM believe that student failure, whatever
happens before and after school, is ultimately the responsibility of teachers and principals
and that solutions to every student‘s problems exist; it is simply a matter of unearthing what
those solutions are. Ultimately, the most direct route, say DDDM advocates, to unearthing
solutions for student failures is to know as much as possible about individuals or groups
within the school to the extent that scientific, informed, and well researched remedies can
be applied. The ultimate goal of DDDM, therefore, is to have enough information at hand to
know where problems exist and how to best solve them.
Success of the data-driven approach is reliant upon the quality of the data gathered
and the effectiveness of its analysis and interpretation (Wigmore, 2013). The availability of
raw data is not synonymous to making informed decisions, meaning, raw data is not
equivalent to information. Collected data must be organized and amalgamated with an
understanding of the context in which they were collected and will be used (Gullo, 2013).
Messelt (2004) stressed that the key to successful implementation of data-driven decision-
making is an outspoken leader who understands the vision, champions the cause and helps
others in the district realize the impact of data analysis. Finding and using "data
champions" throughout the district is an important strategy, creating enthusiasm at all levels
and building a district-wide culture of information, education and communication.
The ideas behind data-driven decision making are not new and were originally
modeled after business and industry practices that successfully used data for organizational
and product improvement (Marsh et al. as cited in Gullo, 2013). In the 1980s, a new way of
doing business evolved as corporations began collecting, combining, and crunching data
from sources throughout the enterprise. Their goal was to improve the bottom line by
discerning hidden patterns and thereby improving the decision making process. Data-Driven
Decision-Making (DDDM) is a relatively recent idea that has emerged in the last 10-15 years
in response to the perceived lack of informed decisions made by principals, administrators,
and teachers regarding problems and failures on the part of students in general.
4
Data is essential for educational institutions especially as basis for decisions that will
help in achieving its vision, mission and goals. However, data alone will not provide school
leaders with the delicacy, knowledge, and clairvoyance needed to get kids on the right
learning path, a growing number of administrators are convinced that the data-driven
decision making process can profoundly transform education – from our understanding of
what really works with kids to administrative processes and professional development
(Ashdjian, 2015). Data have limited use – and could possibly be detrimental – if decision
makers do not understand the benefits and limitations of data, the types of data relevant for
the decisions they are confronted with, and how data can be appropriately used for decision
making‖ (Gill, Borden & Hallgren, 2014). As such, there remain many unanswered questions
about the interpretation and use of data to inform decisions and about the ultimate effects
of the decisions and resulting actions on student achievement and other educational
outcomes (Marsh, Pane and Hamilton, 2006).
Several studies about the utilization of the DDDM have already been conducted. One
such similar study by Lou (2008) examined principals‘ DDDM practices and identified the
factors influencing DDDM using the theoretical frame of information use environments. The
study concluded that as information behavior, DDDM is situational, multidimensional, and
dynamic. Principals used data more frequently in instructional and organization operational
leadership than in the leadership dimensions of school vision and collaborative partnerships.
Different contextual factors such as human-related and organization-related factors affected
data use in different leadership dimensions.
A study conducted by Simpson (2011) found that the greatest impact of using data-
driven decision making was on results of high student achievement and on the improvement
of teaching strategies to meet student needs. Said study concluded that by establishing a
strong data-driven school culture, daily classroom observations, professional development,
and providing teachers with ongoing support, school leaders experienced a profound impact
on student achievement.
Scheikl (2009) made a study to determine to what extent school districts in Virginia
have the capacity to make data-driven decisions, whether demographic factors such as
district size and wealth are related to the level of data-driven decision making capacity, and
5
which leadership practices enable or constrain district office personnel's contributions to

data-driven decision making efforts.
A study by Gullo (2013) described a conceptual framework for improving
instructional practice and student outcomes in early childhood language and literacy through
data-driven decision making while another study (Kerrigan, 2010) focused on the use of
data-driven decision making (3DM) or evidence-based decision making (EBDM) in
postsecondary education. In this study, the external and internal influences regarding the
breadth and depth of DDDM was examined through data extracted from a survey of faculty
and administrator data use at 27 colleges participating in Achieving the Dream and case
studies of four community colleges in New Mexico and Virginia.
The common problem among the cited studies is the investigation of what factors
affect data-driven decision making and what is the impact or outcome of the practice of
DDDM in the said educational institutions. From these studies, it was shown that the data-
driven decision-making approach, when utilized by school leaders, proved to be beneficial.
This particular study, which is a cross-sectional survey research, was conceptualized
in order to come up with a model that will best describe the Data-Driven Decision-Making of
the Higher Education Institution Leaders in the Philippine context using Partial Least Square-
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). While PLS-SEM has been applied in business
research, it is still slowly permeating the field of education. Thus, this study is an
opportunity to utilize this emerging tool in educational research.
Basically, it was focused on Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), specifically,
Philippine state universities and colleges (SUCs) and local colleges and universities (LCUs).
SUCs are established by law, subsidized and administered by the government while LCUs
are established by virtue of the powers vested in the local government by the Local
Government Code. As presented on the CHED website, only 28.53% of the total HEIs
nationwide or six hundred fifty six (656) institutions are public HEIs. Out of this number,
547 of these are state universities and colleges (SUCs) while 95 are local universities and
colleges (LCUs). On the other hand, private HEIs compose 71.47% of the higher education
system, with a total number of 1,643 institutions. Given this lesser number, it can be said
that SUCs and LCUs are the marginalized. Thus, this study aimed to level the playing field
among HEIs by shifting some of the focus to SUCs and LCUs.
6
This study aimed to determine: (1) the profile of the HEI leaders and their schools in
terms of gender, age, educational attainment, area of specialization, length of school
administrative experience and the like, school size (enrolment in your respective college/
department), number of persons handled, schools having a team for data collection and
analysis; (2) the HEI‘s conditions for data use in terms of data quality, data capacity, and
data culture; (3) the HEI Leaders‘ Data-Driven Decision-Making in terms of leadership in
school vision and mission, leadership in school instruction, leadership in school
organizational operation and moral perspective, leadership in collaborative, partnership and
larger- context politics; (4) the effect of HEI‘s conditions for data use to the HEI Leaders‘
Data-Driven Decision-Making; (5) the effect of the HEI‘s conditions for data use to the HEI
Leaders‘ Data-Driven Decision-Making when moderated by profile variables; (6) the general
structural equation model which accounted for the relations between the variables to
determine the data-driven decision-making of the higher education institution leaders.
The study aimed to look into the relationships between the conditions for data use,
i.e., data capacity, data culture and data quality with that of the data-driven decision-
making of HEI‘s measured through four leadership dimensions – school vision and mission,
school instruction, school organizational operation and moral perspective and collaborative,
partnership and larger-context politics.
Conditions for Data Use
The PCG Education Data Leadership Clinic Manual (2010), upon which this study is
anchored, listed the conditions for data use which are data quality, data capacity and data
culture.
Data Quality. Yang & Strong (1996) defined data quality as data that are fit for use
by data consumers and identified four aspects in its conceptual framework – that
the data must be accessible to the data consumer, the consumer must be able to interpret
the data, the data must be relevant to the consumer and the consumer must find
the data accurate.
The PCG manual gave four indicators namely data quality, i.e., timeliness, accuracy,
relevance and comprehensiveness.
7
Data Capacity. This condition refers to the resources available to the organization
to use available data for decision making. This includes team structures, leadership
structures, time, tools, question formulation, assessment literacy, action planning
Data Culture. A data-driven culture is a workplace environment that employs a
consistent, repeatable approach to tactical and strategic decision-making through emphatic
and empirical data proof. Put simply, it‘s an organization that bases decisions on data, not
gut instinct (Cognizant, 2015).
Development of a data culture requires a coordinated effort at all levels in the
organization. Compliance professionals can do a lot, but substantive change cannot happen
without the clear support of management. Employees will always give management what it
wants - not what management says, but what it wants. Managers must focus on data,
graphs, and science-based decision-making whenever possible. Management must provide
resources as needed. Risk analysis is important and should form the direction for our
activities (Torbeck, 2011).
The PCG Manual gave a comprehensive list of indicators of data quality, i.e.,
stakeholder commitment, accountability, desire to collaborate, leadership, beliefs about
data, beliefs about instruction and continual improvement.
Data-Driven Decision-Making
Data-driven decision-making has become an important topic linked to accountability,

school improvement, and educational reforms (Corwin, n.d.). It is an accepted fact,
however, that decision making especially when it comes to planning and development in
educational institutions or any organization, for that matter, is dependent on the leaders.
Universities operate under the direction, leadership, and vision of their educational
administrators. Throughout planning, implementing, and evaluating daily activities, they are
continuously making decisions. Individual differences in thinking styles and information
processing styles cause them to make their decisions differently (Jabeen & Aktar, 2013).
In the context of HEIs and in this particular study, DDDM‘s construct is leadership
and is measured through four indicators: leadership in school vision and mission; leadership
in school instruction; leadership in school organizational operation and moral perspective;
and leadership in collaborative, partnership and larger- context politics.
8
Leadership in School Vision and Mission. The Glossary of Education Reform

defines the school‘s mission as ―a public declaration that schools or other educational
organizations use to describe their founding purpose and major organizational
commitments—i.e., what they do and why they do it. A mission statement may describe a
school‘s day-to-day operational objectives, its instructional values, or its public commitments
to its students and community. On the other hand, a school‘s mission is ―a public declaration
that schools or other educational organizations use to describe their high-level goals for the
future—what they hope to achieve if they successfully fulfill their organizational purpose or
mission. A vision statement may describe a school‘s loftiest ideals, its core organizational
values, its long-term objectives, or what it hopes its students will learn or be capable of
doing after graduating.‖
Thus, an educational institution‘s vision and mission is a kind of philosophical
template upon which the ―concept of what, at its best, a university or college is like and
kinds of human beings that institutions is attempting to cultivate‖ (Abelman & Dalessandro,
2008).
As such, the success of a school is dependent on the attainment of its vision and
mission. This is true in the case of accreditation whereby schools are measured not only
against the standards of accreditation bodies but on what the institution professes to
achieve through their vision and mission. Similarly, success of school leaders is also
measured through the same parameter.
Leadership in School Instruction. Instruction is one of the trifocal functions of
HEIs. The other two are research and extension. In the Philippine setting, a study
conducted by Bernardo (2003) on the Typology of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in
the Philippines confirmed that majority of the HEIs in the country are teaching institutions.
In this context, leadership in Philippine HEIs is mostly assessed, foremost, on the quality of
instruction in the institution which is manifested in the quality of graduates, specifically on
their employability or in the results of licensure examinations.
Leadership in School Organizational Operation and Moral Perspective.
Governance and administration that is compliant with the standards of the Commission on
Higher Education and relevant accrediting bodies, is essential in the successful operation of
9
HEIs. It is the top management in the school administration who steers the institution
towards its goals as they are the ones who develop policies and ensure its implementation.
Leadership in Collaborative, Partnership and Larger-Context Politics. HEIs
do not exist in a vacuum. They are supervised by governmental bodies such as the
Commission on Higher Education, Professional Regulations Commission, Civil Service
Commission and other similar agencies. Moreover, they also form linkages with local,
regional, national and even international associations and organizations because for one, it
is a requirement in program accreditation and recognition, and second, these linkages are
helpful for capability-building. In addition, SUCs and LCUs which are the foci of this research
and being public institutions are highly affected by the larger political context. Leadership,
then, in these institutions is also measured by how well the school administrator performs
given these external forces.
Profile Variables
Several variables serve as moderating variables in this study namely: sex, age,
highest educational attainment, area of specialization, administrative position, length of
school administrative experience, school size (enrolment in your respective college/
department), number of persons supervised, type of school (SUC and LCU) and team for
data collection and analysis.
When it comes to sex, Allison (2011) discussed that numerous studies were already
made about gender and leadership and there are differing viewpoints. Some point out that
there is difficulty in measuring whether men and women have different styles of leadership
for the reason that the subject is being studied against what they call a masculine ideal.
Because of this, women leaders are forced to conform to this ideal. Moreover, there are
other arguments that suggest gender-based leadership theories are misleading because
both men and women do not practice any leadership form by instinct alone. The key factor
is not gender but the prevailing leadership ethos within the specific organization and
context.
Other than gender, age also influences leadership. The findings of a study by
Oshagbemi (2004) entitled ―Age influences on the leadership styles and behaviour of
managers‖ suggest that younger and older managers have different profiles in their
consultative and participative leadership styles. Moreover, this study also averred that older
10
managers consulted more widely and favour more participation in comparison with younger
managers. However the two groups of managers both practice directive and delegative
leadership styles at about the same degree.
The study of Vecchio and Boatwright (cited in Barbuto et.al., 2007) examined the
various profile variables and their relationship with leadership such as gender and maturity
(a combination of age and educational level) of followers as predictors of idealized styles of
leadership. They found that employees with higher levels of education and greater job
tenure expressed less preference for leader structuring (task-oriented behaviors); they also
found that women (relative to men) expressed greater preference for leader
considerateness (relationship-oriented behaviors).
As regards gender, age and level of education, a study conducted by Leon & Jackson
(2009) on the attainment of leadership positions in higher education confirmed that females
are 1.01% more likely to hold upper-level administrative positions. Likewise, older faculty
were 0.06% more likely to hold upper-level administrative positions. Based on level of
education, those with higher degrees were 1.10% more likely to secure upper-level
academic leadership status.
Nayab (2010) avers that the size of an organization has a significant impact on both
leadership style and effectiveness. He further argues that small groups entail participative or
servant leadership whereby the leader can give individual attention to each team member.
On the other hand, leaders of larger organizations are better off with autocratic style of
leadership. The smaller the group size, the better the performance of the leader.
Studies point to the effectiveness of a small group in dimensions such as
interactions, problem solving, stability, communication, and individual involvement or
participation. The notable advantages of big groups over small groups include availability of
diverse skill-sets to solve most problems and reduced stress for the followers (Nayab, 2010)
While there is a lack of literature on how the type of school affect leadership, it is a
given that leadership is contextual. The school contexts in which data-driven decision-
making is practiced may affect the acquisition and use of information (O'Reilly as cited in
Luo, 2005).
The study focuses on SUCs and LCUs which are both public academic institutions.
SUCs are established by law, subsidized and administered by the government while LUCs
11
are established by virtue of the powers vested in the local government by the Local
Government Code. Given such difference in establishment, nature and governing boards,
different leadership styles may be required in these different contexts.
For this study, the proposed hypothesized model is presented below in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Proposed Hypothesized Model of HEI Leaders Data-Driven Decision-Making
The study offered the following propositions: (1) HEI‘s conditions for data use do not
significantly affect the HEI Leaders‘ Data-Driven Decision-Making. (2) HEI‘s conditions for
data use do not significantly affect the HEI Leaders‘ Data-Driven Decision-Making when
moderated by profile variables. (3) There is no general structural equation model accounted
for the relations between the variables which determine the data-driven decision-making of
the higher education institution leaders.
12
In line with this, the outcome of this research is deemed significant to the following:
(1) Findings will provide the higher education institutions‘ a model on the Data-Driven
Decision-Making practices of the Higher Education Institution Leaders using Partial Least
Square- Structural Equation Modeling. This model may be used as basis for identifying the
strengths and weaknesses in decision making of HEI leaders and upon which improvements
may suggested. (2) Findings will encourage the HEIs, both administrator and faculty, to
utilize the data-driven decision making approach in assessing and evaluating the institution‘s
performance vis a vis its vision, mission and goals.
13
METHOD
The research design used was cross-sectional survey research. According to Frankel,
Wallen and Hyun (2012), cross-sectional survey collects information from a sample that has
been drawn from a predetermined population. The predetermined samples of HEI leaders
from different SUCs and LCUs in the Philippines including the members of the Executive,
Academic and Administrative Council, the President/ Administrator, Vice Presidents,
Directors, College Deans, Assistant Deans, Program Coordinators Department Heads and
Subject Coordinators/Chairpersons. The respondents must have subordinates so that they
can practice Data-Driven Decision-Making relative to their positions or are capable to do so.
Furthermore, the information is collected at just one point in time, although the time
it takes to collect all of the data may take anywhere from a day to a few weeks or more
(Anderson, Sweeney, Williams; 2008). Data gathering via questionnaire to the respondents
took place on October to December 2015.
Questionnaires were distributed to the different LCUs leaders present in the National
Association of Local Colleges and Universities (ALCU-COA) Convention held last October
2015 at the University of Makati after securing an approval and endorsement from the
President of ALCU-COA. Some of the respondents returned the questionnaires during that
event and others opted that they be distributed in their respective schools. Survey
questionnaires were then retrieved personally by the researcher while the others sent their
respondents via mail. For the SUCs, additional questionnaires were personally distributed by
the researcher after securing approval from the president, and online communication for
distant schools in Region III, and sent via mail.
A total of 435 questionnaires were distributed and a retrieval rate of 71.26% (or
310) was achieved. From this, only 302 questionnaires or 69.4% were considered valid and
were utilized in the study.
The instrument consisted of three parts. The first part dealt with the respondents‘
characteristics which includes the demographic characteristics of the HEI leaders and the
demographic information of the different schools.
Part two of the instrument dealt with the conditions for data use, which is adopted
from PCG Education (2009). This is subdivided into data quality with six items: data capacity
14
and data culture both with seven items. Some items were modified and contextualized
based on the Philippine educational setting.
Lastly, part three dealt with the data-driven decision-making - leadership dimensions
which consists of 37 items and are adapted from the work of Childress (2009). Some items
were also contextualized and modified. All items were measured by using a four-point Likert
scale, wherein 1 is equivalent to never and 5 is equivalent to always.
Expert validation was sought and a re-validation followed after collating all the
comments and suggestions. Experts who validated the instrument include: Dean of
Instruction and Top Leader of a Recognized Regional Association of Teacher Educators, VP
for Research, Extension and Development, Dean of Graduate School of a State University,
Director of Quality Assurance and Accreditation of a State University, VP for Academic
Affairs of a Local College, former Dean and Chancellor in a State University, Director of
Research and Planning of a Private University, Dean of the Graduate School of a University
and a Statistician from a leading University in Manila.
Piloting of the instrument with 27 respondents was conducted which composed of 14
from a local college and 13 from a state university. Both schools where the pilot test was
conducted were excluded from the target schools for data gathering. Items that were found
to be vague were modified for a clearer construct.
Tabulation of the 27 responses was carried out and then checking of the convergent
validity and reliability of the constructs followed. Convergent validity signifies that a set of
indicators represents one and the same underlying constructs. It is the extent to which
indicators of a specific construct converge or share a high proportion of variance in common
(Henseler et al, 2009). Likewise, Kock (2013), reiterated that measurement instrument has
good convergent validity if the question-statements (or other measures) associated with
each latent variable are understood by the respondents in the same way as they were
intended by the designers of the question-statements. Three measures of convergent
validity are indicator/ item loading, average variance extracted (AVE) and composite
reliability & Cronbach‘s alpha.
Item loading is the relationship between items and constructs. P values associated
with the item loadings be equal to or lower than 0.05; and that the loadings be equal to or
greater than 0.50 (Hair et al., 1987 & 2009 cited in Kock, 2013). Indicators for which these
15
criteria are not satisfied may be removed (Kock 2013). The P values are often referred to as
validation parameters of a confirmatory factor analysis, since they result from a test of a
model where the relationships between indicators and latent variables are defined
beforehand (Kock, 2013). The indicator loadings of the items were all greater than 0.05.
(Refer to Table 1)
Average variance extracted (AVE) is the proportion of variance in the items that is
explained by the construct/latent variable. An AVE threshold frequently recommended for
validity is 0.50 (Fornell and Larker, 1981 as cited in Kock, 2013). For the instrument‘s AVE,
all the computed values are greater than 0.50 and it implies that the latent variables were
able to explain more than 50% of the variances of its indicators on averages. Composite
Reliability and Cronbach‘s Alpha are both measures of internal consistency. As discussed in
Kock (2013):
―More conservatively, both the compositive reliability and the Cronbach‘s alpha should be equal to
or greater than 0.7 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Nunnaly, 1978; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The more
relaxed version of this criterion, which is widely used, is that one of the two coefficients should be equal to
or greater than 0.7. This typically applies to the composite reliability coefficient, which is usually the higher
of the two (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). An even more relaxed version sets this threshold at 0.6 (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). If a latent variable does not satisfy any of these criteria, the reason will often be one or
a few indicators that load weakly on the latent variable. These indicators should be considered for
removal. p.68‖
The computed Composite Reliability and Cronbach‘s Alpha of the instrument are all
greater than 0.70 except for four items. These items were rephrased and modified and were
still included in the questionnaire because their reliability is almost 0.70. (Refer to Table 2)
Lastly, for the discriminant validity, according to Kock (2013), is a measure of the
quality of a measurement instrument; the instrument itself is typically a set of question-
statements. A measurement instrument has good discriminant validity if the question-
statements (or other measures) associated with each latent variable are not confused by the
respondents, in terms of their meaning, with the question-statements associated with other
latent variables. (Refer to Table 3)
Ethical Consideration
The purpose of the study and the importance of the participation of the respondents
study was discussed verbally and through a formal letter, as well as through online
16
discussion with some respondents. A respondent may choose to participate or not in the
study. Willingness and/or unwillingness to answer the questionnaire will be based on the
target respondents‘ decision.
The response of the respondents in the questionnaire was not revealed either to the
HR or management; everything was only utilized for the completion of this paper. The
questionnaire was carefully constructed so that no HR issues between management and
employees will sprout because of the questionnaire. The type of consent secured in this
study was explicit consent, because every respondent of this study was given an option
whether to agree or disagree in the collection and use of information.
Data Analysis
The tabulation and data analysis of the study were done through the aid of these
softwares: Microsoft-excel, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS v.20), WarpPLS v.4,
SmartPLS v.3 and IBM-SPSS-AMOS(Analysis Of Moment Structure).
As preliminary analyses, SmartPLS was used to calculate the validity and reliability of
the questionnaire. SPSS v.20 was used to calculate the frequency and percentage
distribution of the respondents‘ characteristics. Descriptive statistics such as average mean
scores and standard deviations for each of the item was calculated to investigate how often
HEI leaders practice DDDM. The scale below was used in this study.
Number Verbal Interpretation Range

1 Almost Never 1.00 – 1.75
2 Less Often 1.76 – 2.50
3 More Often 2.51 – 3.25
4 Almost 3.26 – 4.00
Partial least square–structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to determine

what factors significantly affect HEI Leaders DDDM practices in each of the leadership
dimensions; and as well as when the relationship was moderated by the profile variables.
This statistical tool is increasingly applied in marketing and other business disciplines
more so, ideal for testing empirical work. Henseler, Ringle and Sinkovics (2009) further
added that PLS-SEM is fitted to use for studies with single headed direction of the structural
paths towards the latent constructs. Specifically, WarpPLS v.4, SmartPLS v.3 are the
softwares used to analyze this part, and in order to re-draw the model with more clarity,
IBM-SPSS-AMOS was used.
17
RESULTS
Respondents’ Characteristics
Table 4 presents the description of the 302 HEI Leaders and their schools‘
demographic and other information. The majority of the HEI Leaders were female (58.9%)
and most of them are aged 40-49 years old. Respondents with doctoral degrees registered
at 26.2%; and 8.6% are still bachelor‘s degree holder. Majority of the respondents‘ area of
specialization include Education, Arts and Sciences, which comprise 49% of the total
sample. Demographics show that presidents /administrators represent 3.3%; 5% are vice
presidents, 12.9% are deans/ college department heads, 19.2% are directors and majority
are coordinators (59.6%). For the years of administrative experience, 68.9% have less than
10 years, and 70.2% are supervising below 160 persons.
The bulk of the schools‘ enrolment size is 3000-5999, and 56% of the HEI leaders
are from Local Colleges and Universities, and 80.5% reported that their HEI had a team
responsible for collecting and analyzing data.
Table 4
Demographic Information of the HEI Leaders and their Schools
Sex n %
Male 124 41.1
Female 178 58.9
Age
Below 30 44 14.6
30-39 72 23.8
40-49 92 30.5
50-59 56 18.5
60 and above 38 12.6
Educational Attainment
Bachelor's Degree 26 8.6
Bachelor's Degree with Master's Units 50 16.6
Master's Degree 80 26.5
Master's Degree with Doctoral Units 67 22.2
Doctoral Degree 79 26.2
Area of Specialization
Agriculture 7 2.3
Allied Health Studies 6 2.0
Business, Accountancy and Good Governance 57 18.9
Education, Arts and Sciences 148 49.0
Engineering, Computing and Allied Field 47 15.6
Others 37 12.3
18
Administrative Position
President/Administrator 10 3.3
Vice President 15 5.0
Dean/College Department Head 39 12.9
Director/Campus Director/Deputy Director/Lab
58 19.2
Director/Exec Director
Coordinator/ Area Coord./ Area Chair/Head
180 59.6
/Dept./Program Head/Chairperson
Years of Experience
Below 10 208 68.9
10-19 39 12.9
20-29 16 5.3
30-39 10 3.3
40-49 2 .7
50 and above 1 .3
No Response 26 8.6
School Size
Below 3000 56 18.5
3,000-5,999 94 31.1
6,000-8,999 23 7.6
9,000-11,999 2 .7
12,000-15,000 5 1.7
No Response 122 40.4
Number of Persons Supervised
Below 160 212 70.2
160 – 319 5 1.7
320 – 479 1 .3
480 – 639 1 .3
640 – 800 1 .3
No Response 82 27.2
Type of School
State Universities and Colleges 133 44.0
Local Colleges and Universities 169 56.0
Data Team
Yes 243 80.5
No 59 19.5
Conditions for Data Use
Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics of overall mean scores and standard
deviations for each condition for data use which includes: data quality, data capacity and
data culture. Means, standard deviations and descriptive ratings are also provided.
The overall mean scores revealed that HEI Leaders almost and more often practiced
the conditions for data use. The highest overall mean score among these three constructs
was the data culture (M = 3.32, SD =0.72, DR=Always). Followed by data quality (M =
3.29, SD =0.66, DR=Always) and last is data capacity (M = 3.15, SD =0.77, DR=Often).
In comparison to the three constructs, data capacity has the lowest mean score
which is more often and the highest is data culture.
19
Table 5
Means and Descriptive Ratings of the Conditions for Data Use Constructs
Std. Verbal
HEI’s conditions for data use Mean
Dev. Interpretation
Data Quality 0.66 3.29 Almost
Data Capacity 0.77 3.15 More Often
Data Culture 0.72 3.32 Almost
HEI Leaders’ Data-Driven Decision-Making
Table 6 presents the descriptive statistics of overall mean scores and standard
deviations for each of the four constructs of DDDM leadership practices in school vision and
mission, school instruction, school organizational operation and moral perspective, and
collaborative partnerships and larger-context politics. Means and standard deviations are
also provided. All the four constructs of DDDM garnered a descriptive rating of almost, and
among the four, the leadership in collaborative, partnership and larger- context politics
garnered the lowest mean score of 3.32.
Table 6
Means and Descriptive Ratings of the Data-Driven Decision-Making
Constructs
Std. Verbal
Data-Driven Decision-Making Mean
Dev. Interpretation
Leadership in School Vision and Mission 0.66 3.42 Almost
Leadership in School Instruction, 0.65 3.42 Almost
Leadership in School Organizational
0.64 3.42 Almost
Operation and Moral Perspective,
Leadership in Collaborative, Partnership 0.69 3.32 Almost
and Larger- Context politics
Partial Least Square- Structural Equation Models of Data-Driven Decision-Making
The most important purpose of this study was to develop PLS-SEM models to
examine the factors that conditions for data use affect the constructs of data-driven decision
making namely; school vision and mission, school instruction, school organizational
operation and moral perspective, and collaborative partnerships and larger-context politics.
20
SEM has been increasingly seen as a useful quantitative technique for specifying,
estimating, and testing hypothesized models describing (causal) relationships among a set
of meaningful variables (R. H. Hoyle, 1995; Kline, 2005; Pearl, 2000).
Figure 2 presents the path diagram showing the effects of HEI‘s condition for data
use on data-driven decision-making. The model fit and quality indices includes average path
coefficient (APC), average R-squared (ARS), average adjusted R-squared (AARS), average
variance inflation factor (AVIF) and average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF).
The goodness of fit statistics of diagram shows the result of APC 0.242, ARS 0.464,
AARS 0.458, AVIF 3.325 and AFVIF 3.882. The overall goodness of fit is 0.556 which can be
described as large based on threshold of the WarpPLS Software Manual. The diagram
shows the path coefficients of the constructs of HEI‘s condition for data use towards the
constructs of data-driven decision-making. P-value having less than 0.05 indicates the
significant relationship between the each constructs.
As reflected in Figure 2, the path coefficients from the constructs of the condition for
data use on to data-driven decision-making are marked with black solid lines to indicate
significance, and red for no significance.
Data quality‘s path coefficients to DDDM constructs are 0.171 for Leadership in
School Vision and Mission, 0.078 for Leadership in School Instruction, 0.137 for Leadership
in School Organizational Operation and Moral Perspective and .095 for Leadership in
Collaborative, Partnership and Larger- Context politics. The p-values are 0.001, 0.085, 0.008
and 0.047 respectively. All are significant except Leadership in School Instruction which
garnered a p-value greater than 0.05.
Data Capacity‘s path coefficients to DDDM constructs are 0.260 for Leadership in
in School Organizational Operation and Moral Perspective and 0.236 for Leadership in
and 0.000 respectively. All are significant except Leadership in School Organizational
Operation and Moral Perspective which garnered a p-value greater than 0.05.
Data Culture‘s path coefficients to DDDM constructs are 0.313 for Leadership in
in School Organizational Operation and Moral Perspective and 0.345 for Leadership in
21
Note: Red lines indicate that the path coefficients are nonsignificant (p>.05).
Legend:
VM = Leadership in School Vision and Mission
INS = Leadership in School Instruction
OPMP = Leadership in Organizational Perspective and Moral Perspective
CPLP = Leadership in Collaborative Partnership and Larger- Context Politics
Figure 2: Path diagram showing the effects of HEIs conditions for data use on data-driven
decision-making
Model fit and quality indices
Average path coefficient (APC) = 0.242, P<0.001

Average R-squared (ARS) = 0.464, P<0.001
Average adjusted R-squared (AARS) = 0.458, P<0.001
Average block VIF (AVIF) = 3.325, acceptable if ≤ 5, ideally ≤ 3.3
Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF) = 3.882, acceptable if ≤ 5, ideally ≤ 3.3
Tenenhaus GoF (GoF) = 0.556, small ≥ 0.1, medium ≥ 0.25, large ≥ 0.36
22
and 0.000 respectively. All are significant at 0.05. (Refer to table 7)
These results revealed that conditions for data use have significant positive effects
to the HEI Leaders‘ Data-Driven Decision-Making.
Partial Least Square- Structural Equation Models of Data-Driven Decision-Making

when moderated by the HEIs Leaders Characteristics
Figure 3 shows the path diagram of the moderating effects of leader characteristics
on the relationship between data quality and data-driven decision making. The model fit and
quality indices includes average path coefficient (APC), average R-squared (ARS), average
adjusted R-squared (AARS), average variance inflation factor (AVIF) and average full
collinearity VIF (AFVIF).
described as large based on threshold of the WarpPLS Software Manual. The diagram
shows the leaders characteristics includes sex, age, educational attainment, area of
specialization (categorized as agriculture (AGRI), allied health studies (AHS), business,
accountancy and good governance(BAGG), education, arts and sciences (EAS),
engineering, computer and allied field (ECAF) and others) length of school administrative
experience and the like, school size, number of persons supervised, type of school, schools
having a team for data collection and analysis were used to moderate the relationship
between data quality and data-driven decision making.
The relationship of data quality and leadership in school vision and mission was
significantly moderated by sex (path coeff. =0.1890, p-value =0.000), type of school (path
coeff. =0.1270, p-value =0.013), allied health studies (AHS) (path coeff. = -0.1110, p-value
=0.025), and engineering, computer and allied field (ECAF) (path coeff. = -0.1790, p-value
=0.000). The rest of the HEI leaders‘ characteristics are non-significant.
The relationship of data quality and leadership in school instruction was significantly
moderated by sex (path coeff. = -0.1280, p-value =0.012), number of person supervised
(path coeff. =0.1470, p-value =0.012), and allied health studies (AHS) (path coeff.
=0.1850, p-value =0.010). The rest of the HEI leaders‘ characteristics are non-significant.
23
Note: Red lines indicate that the path coefficients are non-significant (p>.05).
Legend:
Figure 3: Path diagram showing the moderating effects of leader characteristics on the
relationship between data quality and data-driven decision making
Average path coefficient (APC)=0.099, P=0.020

Average R-squared (ARS)=0.331, P<0.001
Average adjusted R-squared (AARS)=0.295, P<0.001
Average block VIF (AVIF)=2.373, acceptable if ≤ 5, ideally ≤ 3.3
Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF)=1.924, acceptable if ≤ 5, ideally ≤3.3
Tenenhaus GoF (GoF)=0.511, small ≥ 0.1, medium ≥ 0.25, large ≥ 0.36
Reference category for the area of specialization = EAS (Education, Arts and Sciences)
24
The relationship of data quality and leadership in school organizational operation and
moral perspective was significantly moderated by educational attainment (path coeff.= -
0.1590, p-value =0.002), administrative position (path coeff. = -0.1000, p-value =0.040),
number of person supervised (path coeff. = 0.3060, p-value =0.000), and type of school
(path coeff. = 0.1480, p-value =0.012). The rest of the HEI leaders‘ characteristics are non-
significant.
The relationship of data quality and leadership in school in collaborative, partnership
and larger- context politics was significantly moderated by sex (path coeff. = -0.2250, p-
value =0.000), educational attainment (path coeff.= 0.1540, p-value=0.003), number of
person supervised (path coeff.= 0.1670, p-value =0.002) and allied health studies (AHS)
(path coeff. = 0.1280, p-value =0.012). The rest of the HEI leaders‘ characteristics are non-
significant. (Refer to table 8)
Next is Figure 4 which shows the path diagram of the moderating effects of leader
characteristics on the relationship between data capacity and data-driven decision making.
The model fit and quality indices includes average path coefficient (APC), average R-
squared (ARS), average adjusted R-squared (AARS), average variance inflation factor (AVIF)
and average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF).
described as large based on threshold of the WarpPLS Software Manual.
The diagram shows the leaders characteristics includes sex, age, educational
attainment, area of specialization (categorized as agriculture, allied health studies, business,
accountancy and good governance, education, arts and sciences, engineering, computer
and allied field and others) length of school administrative experience and the like, school
size, number of persons supervised, type of school, schools having a team for data
collection and analysis were used to moderate the relationship between data quality and
data-driven decision making.
The relationship of data capacity and leadership in school vision and mission was
significantly moderated by sex (path coeff. =0.1350, p-value =0.009), number of person
supervised (path coeff. =0.169, p-value =0.001), type of school (path coeff. = -0.170, p-
value =0.001). The rest of the HEI leaders‘ characteristics are non-significant.
25
Legend:
relationship between data capacity and data-driven decision-making

Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF)=1.894, acceptable if ≤ 5, ideally ≤ 3.3
Reference category for the area of specialization = EAS (Education, Arts and
Sciences)
26
The relationship of data capacity and leadership in school instruction was

significantly moderated by educational attainment (path coeff. = 0.161, p-value =0.002),
number of person supervised (path coeff. = 0.155, p-value =0.003) and type of school
(path coeff. = -0.108, p-value =0.029). The rest of the HEI leaders‘ characteristics are non-
significant.
The relationship of data capacity and leadership in school organizational operation
and moral perspective was significantly moderated by administrative position (path coeff. =
-0.096, p-value =0.046), and agriculture (path coeff. = -0.096, p-value =0.046). The rest of
the HEI leaders‘ characteristics are non-significant.
The relationship of data capacity and leadership in school in collaborative,
partnership and larger- context politics was significantly moderated by sex (path coeff. = -
0.122, p-value =0.016), educational attainment (path coeff.= 0.208, p-value =0.000),
number of person supervised (path coeff.= 0.094, p-value =0.048) school having a data
team (path coeff. =0.145, p-value =0.005), agriculture (path coeff. = -0.127, p-value
=0.013) and engineering, computer and allied field (ECAF) (path coeff. = 0.159, p-value
=0.002) . The rest of the HEI leaders‘ characteristics are non-significant. (Refer to table 9)
For the last construct, figure 5 shows the path diagram of the moderating effects of
leader characteristics on the relationship between data culture and data-driven decision
making. The model fit and quality indices includes average path coefficient (APC), average
R-squared (ARS), average adjusted R-squared (AARS), average variance inflation factor
(AVIF) and average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF).
described as large based on threshold of the WarpPLS Software Manual.
The diagram shows the leaders characteristics includes sex, age, educational
attainment, area of specialization (categorized as agriculture, allied health studies, business,
accountancy and good governance, education, arts and sciences, engineering, computer
and allied field and others) length of school administrative experience and the like, school
size, number of persons supervised, type of school, schools having a team for data
collection and analysis were used to moderate the relationship between data culture and
data-driven decision making.
27
Legend:
relationship between data culture and data-driven decision-making

Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF)=1.944, acceptable if ≤ 5, ideally ≤ 3.3
Reference category for the area of specialization = EAS (Education, Arts and
Sciences)
28
The relationship of data culture and leadership in school vision and mission was
significantly moderated by sex (path coeff. =0.127, p-value =0.012), age (path coeff.
=0.096, p-value =0.046), educational attainment (path coeff. =0.208, p-value =0.000),
number of person supervised (path coeff. =-0.110, p-value =0.026), type of school (path
coeff. = 0.213, p-value =0.000), school having a data team (path coeff. =0.216, p-value
=0.000), and Allied Health Studies specialization (path coeff. =-0.108, p-value =0.028), The
rest of the HEI leaders‘ characteristics are non-significant.
Meanwhile, the relationship of data culture and leadership in school instruction was
significantly moderated by sex (path coeff. = 0.226, p-value =0.000), Allied Health Studies
specialization (path coeff. = 0.129, p-value =0.012), and engineering, computer and allied
field specialization (path coeff. = 0.148, p-value =0.004). The rest of the HEI leaders‘
characteristics are non-significant.
Next is the relationship of data culture and leadership in school organizational
operation and moral perspective was significantly moderated by sex (path coeff. = 0.142, p-
value =0.006), school size (path coeff. = -0.122, p-value =0.015), Allied Health Studies
specialization (path coeff. = 0.133, p-value =0.009), and engineering, computer and allied
field specialization (path coeff. = 0.117, p-value =0.020). The rest of the HEI leaders‘
characteristics are non-significant.
Lastly, the relationship of data culture and leadership in school in collaborative,
partnership and larger- context politics was significantly moderated by sex (path coeff. =
0.204, p-value =0.000), educational attainment (path coeff.= 0.132, p-value =0.010),
school having a data team (path coeff. =0.110, p-value =0.027), and engineering,
computer and allied field specialization (path coeff. = 0.146, p-value =0.005). The rest of
the HEI leaders‘ characteristics are non-significant. (Refer to table 10)
The emerging model of HEI leaders‘ data-driven decision-making is represented in
Figure 6. The main effect comprises with the following: data quality is significant to these
constructs to all the constructs of data-driven decision-making except for leadership in
school instruction. On the other hand, data capacity is significant to all the constructs of
data-driven decision-making except leadership in school organizational operation and moral
perspective. Lastly, data culture is significant to all the constructs of data-driven decision-
making. (Refer to Table 11)
29
Note: Red lines indicate that the path coefficients are non-significant (p>.05).
Figure 6: Emerging Model of the HEI Leaders Data-Driven Decision-Making

30
For the moderators, sex is significant in the paths of data quality to VM, INS and
CPLP. Next, sex is also significant in the paths of data capacity to VM and CPLP. Lastly, Sex
is significant too in the paths of data culture to VM, INS, OPMP and CPLP.
Next moderator is the age. It is only significant to the path of data culture and
leadership in school vision and mission. For the type of school, it is significant in the paths
of data quality to VM and OPMP. Moreover, it is also significant to the paths of data capacity
to VM and INS, and to the paths of data culture to VM.
Educational attainment is significant to the paths of data quality to OPMP and CPMP.
The same is true to the paths of data capacity to INS and CPLP, and likewise to the paths of
data culture to VM and CPLP.
Number of person supervised is significant to the paths of data quality to INS, OPMP
and CPLP. Similarly, to the paths of data capacity to VM, INS and CPLP and also to the
paths of data culture to VM.
Meanwhile, administrative position is significant to the path of data quality to OPMP
and to the path of data capacity to OPMP.
School having a data team deemed significant to the paths of data capacity to CPLP
and data culture to VM and CPLP.
School size is lone significant to the path of data culture and OPMP.
Lastly, for the area of specialization of the HEI leaders taking education, arts and
sciences as the reference category, allied health studies is significant to the paths of data
quality to VM, INS and CPLP. Engineering, computer and allied field category is likewise
significant to the paths of data quality to VM, and data culture to INS, OPMP and CPLP,
while the agriculture category is significant to the paths of data capacity to OPMP and CPLP.
31
DISCUSSION
Based on the results, the level of conditions for data use in the HEIs, i.e., data
culture, data quality and data capacity, is always with data culture as the most practiced
and data capacity as the least practiced. This result attests that the HEIs are already
engaged in a data-driven culture and, as such, the school leaders utilize data in decision
making. Majority of the HEI‘s affirm that they have a data team, however, whether this
practice is systematized and institutionalized remains to be investigated.
One of the objectives of the Public Higher Education Reform Framework as provided
in the Roadmap for Public Higher Education 2011-2016 is to upgrade the quality in public
higher education. To achieve this, one of the strategies is strengthening of quality assurance
in SUCs and LUCs through monitoring and evaluation, phase out or closure of substandard
programs and accreditation. With this, it has become mandatory for these institutions to rely
more on data to comply with these requirements. This, essentially, explains and
characterizes HEIs data culture which as earlier stated is most observed among the data
conditions. HEIs align the current statistics of the institution with the requirements of the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and accreditation such as faculty qualifications and
library standards which entails the gathering of data in the institution. Such data then is
used by the school leaders in policymaking relevant to the faculty hiring and development
and the upgrading of library resources and facilities.
Among the data conditions, data capacity is the least observed which implies that
respondent HEIs are weakest in this area. As earlier noted, while most of the HEIs have a
team to handle data, the question whether the institution has the resources available such
as human resources and infrastructures that can be used for decision-making which includes
team structures, leadership structures, time, tools, question formulation, assessment literacy
and action planning (PCG, 2010) still need to be investigated further. The results of this
study, however, attest that most HEIs still lack the resources and systems for data capacity.
This confirms the position of Johnston & Kristovich (as cited in Hora et.al., 2014)
when they averred that the one of the challenges facing DDDM in postsecondary institutions
is the inadequate capacity in regards to technology and human capital (i.e., skills) for
translating data into useful and actionable knowledge. In terms of technology, the four most
32
basic categories of data systems involved in D3M efforts are student information systems,
data warehouses, decision-support systems, and instructional management systems
(Bernhardt, 2005; Cromey, van der Ploeg, & Blase, 2000; National Forum on Education
Statistics, 2005a; Wayman, 2007, Scheikl, 2009). Apparently, these systems are not yet in
place in most SUCs and LCUs and some faculty are not that competent to use them.
The three (3) major propositions in this study were not confirmed as shown on the
results of the study. The next part will discuss the results of the tests conducted vis a vis
said propositions.
Proposition No. 1. HEIs‘ conditions for data use do not significantly affect the HEI Leaders‘
This study confirmed the use of data as an HEI leader in decision making under the
four leadership dimensions namely, school vision and mission, school instruction, school
organizational operation and moral perspective and collaborative partnerships and larger
context politics, is Always. While DDDM is a fairly new approach being applied in the field of
education, the study has proven that SUC and LCU leaders already utilize data to guide their
decisions within the institution. Analysis using proper statistical tools remains to be the gap.
Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005 cited in Hora et.al.) posited that continuous improvement
is the underlying idea behind DDDM. In their study, continuous improvement was defined as
the systems that are designed to continually monitor organizational processes in order to
identify problems through careful analysis and then enact corrective measures. In the
Philippine context, continuous improvement is equated to accreditation. Highly instrumental,
as well, in the thrust for continuous improvement is the constant monitoring of the CHED on
compliance to program standards. Thus, it is in this context that it can be said that this
result is somehow expected from current HEI leaders because recognition and accreditation
processes push them to rely on ‗numbers‘ in the institution to determine their compliance to
standards.
In the study of Luo (2008) cited in Chapter 1, it was found out that principals use
data more frequently in instructional and organization operational leadership than the other
33
leadership dimensions of school‘s vision and collaborative partnerships. Thus, it was

concluded that DDDM, as information behavior, is multidimensional, situational and
dynamic. The results presented below are aligned with the results of this cited study.
Different conditions for data use significantly affect the DDDM of HEI leaders under different
leadership dimensions.
The results of this study show that data quality significantly affects leadership in
school vision and mission, leadership in school organizational operation and moral
perspective and leadership in collaborative, partnership and larger-context politics.
Given the four indicators of data quality which are timeliness, accuracy, relevance
and comprehensiveness given by PCG (2010), the result of this study is apparent. Decision-
making in relation to the school vision and mission, school operation and school
organization and leadership in collaborative partnership and larger-context politics needs
that data be not only available but also that they meet these four indicators in order that
they could be utilized in decision-making. One of the barriers in the implementation of a
data-driven decision making is data quality. Data analysis is only as strong as the quality of
data from which it is derived which is tantamount to garbage in, garbage out. If the data is
flawed, concerns can be raised about the quality of decisions that administrators are making
based on that data (Messelt, n.d.).
On the other hand, results show that data quality does not significantly affect
leadership in school instruction. While it is easy to conclude otherwise, the current data
quality situation in HEIs might be a deterrent. Educators in data-driven school organizations
are expected to utilize data from yearly summative assessments to improve student learning
(McLeod, n.d.). The five major elements of data-driven instruction are good baseline data,
measurable instructional goals, frequent formative assessment, professional learning
communities, and focused instructional interventions (McLeod, n.d.). Taking said elements
of data-driven instruction in consideration, it can be said the reason for the result is that in
the current status of HEIs‘, these elements are not yet fully met. It was presented earlier
that data capacity is the least observed of the data conditions. As such, school leaders
cannot fully incorporate data quality in their decision making with regards to school
instruction because they lack the capacity to meet the enumerated elements. To make the
best decisions, educators need to have access to timely assessment and other data, such as
34
attendance and behavior records. Data availability and use are crucial to improving
academic outcomes at high-performing schools (Leadership, 2011). To date, there are only
very few HEIs which have the technology data bank which can store timely and reliable data
for decision making of leaders.
Educators will need high quality and ongoing professional development not only to
increase their assessment literacy and data analysis capability but also to develop their
collaborative inquiry skills (Scheickl, 2009). Data analysis involves multiple interpretations
which normally a team of collaborators would effectively and efficiently address.
Data capacity significantly affects leadership in school vision and mission, leadership
in school instruction and leadership in collaborative, partnership and larger-context politics.
Without the capacity to access, understand, and use the data that are available, no
amount of data (high quality or not) will lead to meaningful data use. In fact, without data
capacity, the data proved to be useless, since no analysis from experts is obtained. If data
quality is the fuel, data capacity is the engine that converts the fuel to energy (Ronka,
Geier, and Marciniak, 2010).
Rankin and Ricchiuti (cited in Gullo, 2013) averred, in relation to building data
capacity, that once high-quality and meaningful data are collected, it is critical the users of
those data be taught how to develop strong and relevant questions that focus on
educational issues such as student and teacher performance or program quality.
While it was affirmed earlier that data capacity is the least observed among the
conditions for data use, the study has proven that data capacity as significantly affecting
above leadership dimensions. The results show particularly which area in school
administration it significantly influences. In this vein, strengthening data capacity will also
strengthen leadership in the said areas. When leaders become competent in analyzing data,
leadership decisions may turn out to be favorable to the institutions‘ sustainability as well as
in meeting its vision-mission and goals.
Data capacity, however, does not significantly affect leadership in school
organizational operation and moral perspective. Data capacity is provided by the institution
itself as it refers to the resources available in the school like statistical software and
research laboratories. There is no direct relationship between the facilities and the ability of
the leaders to make an informed decision. But nonetheless, it is necessary for institutions to
35
acquire facilities to improve data capacity which can be utilized by researchers. It is not like
data quality which is a condition of the data itself and data culture which is the school‘s way
of life‘ relevant to the use in decision making.
When it comes to data culture, this condition for data use, significantly affects the
HEIs DDDM under the four leadership dimensions. A culture of data use can only develop if
data quality and capacity are in place (Ronka et.al., 2010). As such, data quality and data
capacity are preconditions to data culture. When an institution achieves a distinct data
culture, it means that it has already met the conditions of data quality and capacity. This
implies that it is the highest among the conditions and based on the results of the study it
also the most practiced among the conditions. This explains then why data culture
significantly affects all of the leadership constructs. This is when the academic institution
becomes a researching institution whereby its culture, faculty and facilities focus in the
generation of new knowledge.
The study of Simpson (2011) affirms the positive outcomes of a strong data culture
in the school wherein it was concluded that the greatest impact of this culture is the
improvement of teaching strategies to meet student needs and its profound impact on
student achievement. This is basically when action research are done by teachers to
enhance instruction.
Proposition 2: HEI‘s conditions for data use do not significantly affect the HEI Leaders‘ Data-
Driven Decision-Making when moderated by profile variables
This proposition was not confirmed in this study. On the contrary, it was proven in
this study that HEIs conditions for data use significantly affect the HEI leaders‘ DDDM when
moderated by profile variables. This same conclusion was reached in the study of Luo
(2008) which averred that different contextual factors such as human-related and
organization-related factors affected data use in different leadership dimensions.
The study determined that data quality significantly affects leadership in school
vision and mission. Results further show that the relationship of data quality and leadership
in school vision and mission is significantly moderated by sex, type of school, areas of
specialization allied health studies, engineering and computer and allied studies. Moreover,
36
the study also determined that data quality significantly affects leadership in school
organizational operation and moral perspective. This relationship is significantly moderated
by the HEI leader‘s profile in terms of educational attainment, administrative position,
number of persons supervised and type of school. A qualified leader occupying a significant
position and supervising an ideal number of subordinates in a highly accredited school
would like be more efficient and effective in making decisions based on evidence and
research, as compared to a person having contrary attributes. Finally, under data quality
and in relation to the second hypothesis, it was proven that data quality significantly affects
leadership in collaborative partnership and larger-context politics. This relationship is
significantly moderated by sex, educational attainment, number of persons supervised and
the area of specialization of allied health studies. Evidence-based decision making prove to
be a worthwhile undertaking when active leaders collaborate and establish joint undertaking
in solving institutional problems. Win-win solutions are obtained when there are more two
heads working together in harmony.
It has been proven in more than one study based on different cultures that women's
style of leadership is more participative as opposed to the male's style of leadership that
tends to be more autocratic (Hintea, Macarie & Mora, 2011; Pitts, 2005; Eagley &Johnson,
1990 cited in ElKhouly, S. E., & El Sedfy, H., 2014). Given such and as shown in the results
of the study, the HEI leader‘s gender may affect how data quality is ensured and utilized for
decision making specially in the attainment of the school‘s vision and mission and also in
engaging in and maintaining partnerships, linkages and networking and, of course, in
larger-context politics. Under autocratic leadership, decision making is centralized with the
leader making all the decisions and with little or no input from members or employees.
While in participative leadership, decisions are made in a democratic manner where those
people in the lower hierarchy are given opportunities for input. The task of ensuring data
quality would then be different in these distinct contexts.
The type of school has also been proven as a significant moderator. As averred, the
nature of state universities and local colleges differ from private HEIs in terms of manner of
establishment, governing boards, program establishment and operation and others.
Moreover, while SUCs and LCUs are both public institutions, both have differences in
governance structure, management and operation. Data quality, in this sense, as used in
37
decision making could also be affected. There are schools which have more protocols and
procedures to be followed and there are others which have simpler and faster procedures
which can affect the delivery of outcomes, whether positive or negative.
Educational attainment is also proven to significantly moderate the relationship of
data quality and leadership in school organizational operation and moral perspective. As
mandated in CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) no. 32 s. 2006 re: Policies, Standards and
Guidelines on the Establishment and Operation of Local Colleges and CMO No. 16 s. 2009
re: Rules and Regulations Governing the Search for Presidents of State Universities and
Colleges, the president of any SUC or LCU must be a holder of a doctoral degree from a
reputable higher education institution and with relevant administrative experience. This
attests that as recognized HEIs and academic institutions, the leaders‘ educational
attainment matters a lot in recognizing the basic criterion for leadership. The impact of this
academic requirement can be gleaned from the result of the study wherein educational
attainment affects the relationship of the data quality when it comes to school
organizational operation and moral perspective.
In the same manner, the administrative position is also a significant moderator for
data quality and leadership in school organizational operation and moral perspective. The
roles of a leader in an organization can affect both the set of information available and one's
perspective on the problem (O'Reilly & Pondy as cited in Luo, 2005).
In order to institute a data-driven culture, the initiative must come from or at least
must be fully supported by the top management. The key to successful implementation of
data-driven decision making is an outspoken leader who understands the vision, champions
the cause and helps others in the district to realize the impact of data analysis (Messelt,
n.d.).
The number of persons supervised is also a significant moderator specifically
between data quality and leadership in school organizational operation and moral
perspective and leadership in leadership in school organizational operation and moral
perspective. As Nayab (2010) averred, the size of an organization has a significant impact
on both leadership style and effectiveness. Few supervisees would prove to be more
favorable than many. Nonetheless, data quality is still the product of systems, effective in
ensuring that data is timely, accurate, comprehensive and relevant.
38
Different areas of specialization also are significant moderators. Specifically, allied

health studies, engineering and computer and allied studies significantly moderates the
relationship of data quality and leadership in school vision and mission while allied health
studies significantly moderates the relationship of data quality significantly affects
leadership in collaborative partnership and larger-context politics. Different areas of study
with its different program requirements and intended outcomes bring about different kinds
of leaders. To date, however, most programs have been slow to recognize the unique
leadership issues related to data-driven decision-making. They have been even slower in
responding to the needs of the schools that receive their graduates for leaders who are
knowledgeable about and well-prepared to deal with data collection and analysis
(McNamara as cited in Luo, 2005). The pre-service preparation of administrators in
assessment and data analysis has been weak or nonexistent (National Staff Development
Council as cited in Luo, 2005). This particular study has shown which areas of specialization
can influence the success of instituting data-driven decision-making in the institution.
On the other hand, it was proven in this study that data quality and leadership
instruction does not significantly affect leadership in school instruction. Furthermore, this
relationship is significantly moderated by sex, number of persons supervised and area of
specialization in allied health studies.
This study has also proven that data capacity, the second condition for data use,
significantly affects leadership in school vision and mission, leadership in school instruction
and leadership in collaborative partnership and larger-context politics. This relationship is
significantly moderated by different profiles of the HEI and its leaders. First, the relationship
between data capacity and leadership in school vision and mission and also leadership in
school instruction is significantly moderated by sex, number of persons supervised and type
of school. Second, the relationship of data capacity and leadership in school operation and
in school organizational operation and moral perspective is significantly moderated by
educational attainment, number of person supervised and type of school.
Affirmed in a study by Mason as cited in Ronka et.al.(2010) of six schools in an
urban district in the United States is the necessity of the capacity building process as an
intermediate step between gathering data and utilizing it for strategic actions. Several
challenges were faced by the school such as: sustaining a commitment to transform data
39
into knowledge, making data use a high priority, putting an effective data management and
integration system in place, developing analytic skills in school leaders, and building capacity
to link data to school improvement planning. Given the difficulty of improving data capacity,
the weakest among the conditions for data use, its relationship with data-driven decision-
making of the HEI is moderated further by above variables.
As iterated, variables such as sex, number of persons, type of school and
educational attainment can affect the leadership style of an HEI administrator which can, in
turn, affect primarily the decision to use this approach in decision making and, secondly, to
implement, systematize and institutionalize it and more so, in investing resources for
capacity building.
The raison d‘etre of any HEI lies on its school vision and mission, thus, the success
of a school is dependent on its attainment. The accreditation process is the best
manifestation of this under which the HEI is measured against its own vision and mission,
i.e., whether it has been achieved or not. The effectiveness of the school leader is similarly
dependent on this. The decision to invest in data capacity building in order to achieve the
school vision and mission would depend on the top management. The results of the study
show above variables influence this decision. This is also true for school instruction.
On the other hand, it has also been proven that data capacity does not significantly
affect leadership in collaborative partnership and larger-context politics. This relationship is
significantly moderated by different profile variables namely sex, educational attainment,
number of person supervised and field of specialization of agriculture and engineering,
computer and allied field. There is no link associating research facilities with collaboration
and partnership with other institutions, since most institutions are known to be very
protectionists regarding the use of facilities by other entities outside their institutions.
The third condition for data use, data culture was proven through the tests
conducted that it significantly affects leadership in school vision and mission, leadership in
school instruction, leadership in school organizational operation and moral perspective,
leadership in collaborative partnership and larger-context politics. Differing HEI profile
variables significantly moderate said relationships. First, relationship of data culture and
leadership in school vision and mission is significantly moderated by sex, age, educational
attainment, number of person supervised, type of school, school having a data team, and
40
allied health studies specialization. Second, the relationship of data culture and leadership in
school instruction is significantly moderated by sex, allied health studies specialization and
engineering, computer and allied field specialization. Third, data culture and leadership in
school organizational operation and moral perspective was significantly moderated by sex,
allied Health Studies specialization, and engineering, computer and allied field specialization.
Lastly, the relationship of data culture and leadership in school in collaborative, partnership
and larger- context politics was significantly moderated by sex, educational attainment,
school having a data team, and engineering, computer and allied field specialization.
Consistently, above variables also are proven to significantly affect data quality and
data capacity. The initial study of Luo (2005) on high school principals' data-driven decision-
making practices and their relationships to contextual variables concluded that although
data-driven decision-making was practiced frequently by the principals in the leadership
dimensions of instruction, organizational operation, and school vision, there were no
significant demographic effects on data-driven decision-making. This contradicts the findings
of this particular study. Instead, Luo‘s study identified various dimensions that significantly
influenced data-driven decision-making such as data analysis skills, attitudes towards data,
the access to data, and the data use requirement of school district.
Proposition 3: There is no general structural equation model accounted for the relations
between the variables which determine the data-driven decision-making of the higher
education institution leaders.
Presented on Figure 1 is the Proposed Hypothesized Model of HEI Leaders Data-

Driven Decision-Making showing the relationships between the HEI conditions for data use
and the HEI data-driven decision-making. This study came up with an emerging model,
presented on Figure 6, which depicts, specifically, the significant and non-significant
relationships of the variables as presented in Figure 1. As such, this model debunks the third
proposition of this study.
Given the effects of the emerging model, this section presents how the emerging
model and its effects may be utilized by HEIs in applying the DDDM in order to achieve the
41
goals of in the institution. The following inference are enumerated: (1) Data quality is
significant to all the leadership dimensions of data-driven decision-making except for
leadership in school instruction. Given the significance of data quality to decision making,
HEIs should focus on meeting the elements for this condition, i.e. timeliness, accuracy,
relevance and comprehensiveness, by providing mechanisms, systems and policies to
ensure such. (2) Data capacity is significant to all the leadership dimensions of data-driven
decision-making except leadership in school organizational operation and moral perspective.
HEI leaders should start with building data capacity as it is the intermediary step through
the following: establishing a data team and appointing a qualified team leader, setting a
regular schedule to engage in collaborative data analysis and interpretation, providing
access to data analysis tools, capacitating personnel in key educational issues and
assessment terms and concepts, and enabling personnel to conduct action planning
regarding data-driven goals and develop and implement action plans to accomplish those
goals (PCG Education Manual); (3) Data culture is significant to all the constructs of data-
driven decision-making. Creating a data culture can be considered the apex among the data
conditions. HEIs should first focus in ensuring data quality and building capacity among its
faculty and key decision makers. Data culture will evolve through these systems and will
eventually become the organization‘s way of life.
When it comes to the results regarding the moderators, HEI leaders can use the
results as basis in the establishment of a data team in the institution. Results have been
clustered into two based on leaders‘ profile or HEIs profile: (1) Leaders‘ profile (sex, age,
educational attainment, area of specialization, number of person‘s supervised and
administrative position). Results show that sex is significant in the paths of first, data quality
to VM, INS and CPLP; second, data capacity to VM and CPLP and third, data culture to VM,
INS, OPMP and CPLP. Age is only significant to the path of data culture and leadership in
school vision and mission. Educational attainment is significant to the paths of, first, data
quality to OPMP and CPMP; second, data capacity to INS and CPLP, and, third, data culture
to VM and CPLP.
Lastly, for the area of specialization of the HEI leaders taking education, arts and
sciences as the reference category, allied health studies is significant to the paths of data
quality to VM, INS and CPLP. Engineering, computer and allied field category is likewise
42
significant to the paths of data quality to VM, and data culture to INS, OPMP and CPLP,
while the agriculture category is significant to the paths of data capacity to OPMP and CPLP.
Number of person supervised is significant to the paths of data quality to INS, OPMP and
CPLP. Similarly, to the paths of data capacity to VM, INS and CPLP and also to the paths of
data culture to VM. Meanwhile, administrative position is significant to the path of data
quality to OPMP and to the path of data capacity to OPMP.
These results can be used by the HEI leaders in creating data teams especially in
assigning the data team leader. If the team already exists, these results can be aligned to
the functions of each personnel within the team. (2) HEIs profile (type of school, presence
of data team and school size). Type of school is significant in the paths of data quality to VM
and OPMP and is also significant to the paths of data capacity to VM and INS, and to the
paths of data culture to VM while the presence of data team is deemed significant to the
paths of data capacity to CPLP and data culture to VM and CPLP. More so, if technology is
available, a data bank may help in ensuring efficient data system for decision making. Data
teams have the responsibility in data migration and data collection for system updating.
The findings of this study revealed that data-driven decision-making already exists in
most HEIs and that the conditions for data use, i.e., data quality, data capacity and data
culture are already present. However, the results of this study are limited because only
quantitative data were used. Further research could use qualitative data to confirm and
revalidate the results of the study by actual human participants, specifically, case studies
that would document how HEIs practice DDDM.
It is also recommended that a separate PLS-SEM be undertaken to revalidate the
interrelationships between and amongst the factor or dimensions of the emerging model.
The study also recommends the testing of the relationships and associations using
regression analysis and causality. Lastly, the emerging model can be both employed to a
wider population of HEIs, to include private HEIs.
43
REFERENCES
Abelman,R.& Dalessandro, A. (2008). An Assessment of the Institutional Vision of Catholic

Colleges and Universities. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry & Practice, 12(2),
221-254.
Allison, K. (2011). Leadership and Gender. In K. Dowding (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Power (pp.
377-381). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX1959300207&v=2.1&u=phupou&it=r&
p=GPS&sw=w&asid=1269738cf728031dd42aeb363e8761bd
Anderson, D., Sweeney, D. and Williams,T. (2008). Statistics for Business and Economics
10th Edition. Thomson Higher Education, USA.
Barbuto Jr., J., Fritz, S., Matkin, G. and Marx , D. (2007). Effects of gender, education, and
age upon leaders' use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviors. Sex Roles,
56(1-2), 71-83. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9152-6
Businessdictionary.com. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/quality-criteria.html
Childress, M. (2009) Data-driven decision making: The development and validation of an

instrument to measure principals‘ practices. Volume 9 Issue 2 Spring 2011 Academic
leadership, the online journal
Cognizant (NASDAQ: CTSH) (2015). How to create a data culture? Retrieved from
http://www.cognizant.com/InsightsWhitepapers/how-to-create-a-data-culture-
codex1408.pdf
Commission on Higher Education -Memorandum Order (CHED -CMO) no. 32 s. 2006

Policies, standards and guidelines on the establishment and operation of local colleges
Commission on Higher Education -Memorandum Order (CHED -CMO) Rules and regulations
governing the search for presidents of state universities and colleges
Corwin, (n.d.) Transforming teaching and learning. http://www.corwin.com/upm-

data/48142_chap1.pdf
Dell Inc. (2013). Statistics: Methods and Applications. (Electronic Version): Tulsa, OK: Dell.
WEB: http://documents.software.dell.com/statistics/current/textbook.
Dyson, Lily (1999).Developing a University-School District Partnership: Researcher- District

Administrator Collaboration for Special Education Initiative. Retrieved on June 11, 2013
from http://www.cssescee.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE24-4/CJE24-4-dyson.pdf
44
ElKhouly, S. E., & El Sedfy, H. M. (2014). Gender and leadership styles: The impact on
organizational culture and employee empowerment. Competition Forum, 12(1), 141-151.
Retrieved from
Evans, J and Lindsay, W.(2007). Managing for Quality and Performance Excellence.
Cengage Learning.
Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N. and Hyun, H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education, 7th Edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Glossary in Educational Reform. http://edglossary.org/mission-and-vision/
Gullo, Dominic. (2013). Improving Instructional Practices, Policies, and Student Outcomes
for Early Childhood Language and Literacy Through Data-Driven Decision Making. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 41(6), 413-421. doi:10.1007/s10643-013-0581-x
Higher Education in Numbers. Retrieved from http://www.ched.gov.ph/index.php/higher-

education-in-numbers/higher-education-institutions/
Hill, T. & Lewicki, P. (2007). Statistics: Methods and Applications. (Printed Version): Dell,
Tulsa, OK.
Hora, M., Bouwma‐Gearhart, J and Joon Park, H. (2014) Exploring Data‐Driven Decision‐
Making in the Field: How Faculty Use Data and Other Forms of Information to Guide
Instructional Decision‐Making. WCER Working Paper No. 2014‐3
Jabeen, S. & Saeed Akhtar, M.M. (2013). Decision Making Styles of University Leadership.
Dialogue (1819-6462), 8(3), 273-284.
Kabacoff , R. & Stoffey R. (2012) Age Differences in Organizational Leadership .

Management Research Group. Retrieved from
http://www.mrg.com/uploads/PDFs/age_and_leadership_2012.pdf
Kerrigan, M. R. (2010). Data-driven decision making in community colleges: New technical

requirements for institutional organizations (Order No. 3424896). Available from
ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (756253800). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/756253800?accountid=47253
Kline, R. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling 3rd Edition. A
Division of Guilford Publications, Inc. www.guilford.com/kline
Luo, M. (2005). An empirical study of high school principals' data-driven decision-making

practices and their relationships to contextual variables (Order No. 3220663). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305356333). Retrieved from
45
McLeod, S. (n.d.) Data Driven Teachers. Essential Competencies for Data-Driven Teachers
Retrieved on January 15, 2016 from
http://www.microsoft.com/Education/ThoughtLeaders.aspx
Messelt, J. (n.d.) Data-driven decision-making: A powerful tool for school improvement.

Retrieved from
https://www.erdc.k12.mn.us/promo/sage/images/analytics_whitepaper.pdf
Mingchu, L. (2008). Structural Equation Modeling for High School Principals' Data-Driven
Decision Making: An Analysis of Information Use Environments. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 603-634.
Nayab, N. and Bowen, R. (2010). How does group size affect leadership? Retrieved on
January 22, 2016 from http://www.brighthubpm.com/resource-management/92552-
how-does-group-size-affect-leadership/
Oshagbemi, T. (2004). Age influences on the leadership styles and behaviour of managers.
Employee Relations, 26(1), 14-29. Retrieved from
PCG Education (2010) Data Leadership Clinic. Achieving Data Quality, Data Capacity, and
Data Culture in your School
PP&S (n.d.) Quality Management: Then, Now and Toward the Future. Retrieved from
http://www.pp-s.com/files/ppswp_qmsbeyondprod.pdf
Rees, J. (2015) ―St Petersburg College on Culture, Data and Transparency,‖ Civitas Learning
Space Retrieved from http://www.civitaslearningspace.com/st-petersburg-college-on-
culture-data-and-transparency/
Road Map Public Higher Education Reform. (2011) Retrieved from

http://www.ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Roadmap-for-Public-Higher-
Education-Reform1.pdf
Ronka, D., Geier, R. and Marciniak, M.(2010). A practical framework for building a data-
driven district or school: how a focus on data quality, capacity, and culture supports
data-driven action to improve student outcomes. PCG Education White Paper.
Scheikl, O. (2009). Central office data-driven decision making in public education (Order No.
3364875). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305014734).
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305014734?accountid=47253
Simpson, G. H. (2011). School leaders' use of data-driven decision-making for school

improvement: A study of promising practices in two california charter schools(Order No.
3478014). Available from ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(901883434).
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/901883434?accountid=47253
46
The Context of Data-Driven Decision Making. Retrieved from www.corwin.com/upm-

data/48142_chap1.pdf
Torbeck, L. (2011). Data culture. Journal of Validation Technology, 17(4), 12-19. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/914993766?accountid=47253
Wang, R. & Strong, D. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data
consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5. Retrieved from
Wigmore, I. (2013) Data-Driven Decision Management (DDDM) . Retrieved from

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/data-driven-decision-management-DDDM
Williams, T. (2012). When Data Drives School Culture. Retrieved from

www.mrg.com/uploads/PDFs/age_and_leadership_2012.pdf. Retrieved on February 2,
2016
47
APPENDIX A
Approval letter to conduct data gathering
UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION

City of San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines
Graduate School
October 6, 2015
Dear Dr. Ducut,
Mr. Ediric D.Gadia dropped by my office yesterday (October 5) to discuss the status of his
dissertation. He has completed the following requirements and tasks:
1. Four attempts to communicate with the author of the instrument (Data-Driven

Decision-Making) regarding the modification of the instrument
2. Content validation of the modified instrument by 9 experts
3. Pilot testing of the instrument to 27 respondents in a school (see attached instrument)
4. Performed convergent validity and discriminant analysis
5. Provided the indices for convergent validity
6. Outputs through the tables on the convergent validity statistics of the variables
7. Performed and demonstrated Smart PLS in the office
8. Guidance of the external statistician (Prof. Amora)
Base on my assessment, he is ready to conduct data gathering as soon as approval from

your office is granted. He is targeting around 700 respondents.
Attached here are the documents.
Hoping for your favorable response.
Respectfully,
Dr. Arnel T.Sicat (Sgd)

Adviser
Approved by:
Dr. Ruth B.Ducut (Sgd)

Dean
48
Appendix B
Letter of validation

Graduate School
October 6, 2015
To whom it may concern:
In accordance with the validity of the questionnaire prepared by Mr. Ediric D. Gadia, a
student of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph. D.) major in Educational Management, particularly on
the dissertation entitled, ―Partial Least Square- Structural Equation Modeling of the Data-
Driven Decision-Making of the Higher Education Institution Leaders‖, the undersigned attest
that it has been checked and verified.
Items stipulated therein were found sufficient, accurate and in order to the study being
conducted.
Arnel T. Sicat, Ph. D. (Sgd)

Adviser
Ruth Balajadia- Ducut, Ed. D. (Sgd)

Dean
49
Appendix C
Letter of for the HEI leader

Graduate School
October 9, 2015
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
Dear Sir/Mam,
Greetings of Peace!
In the quest of pursuing higher educational qualifications, the undersigned is currently

working on his Ph. D. dissertation entitled, ―Modeling of Higher Education Institution
Leaders Data-Driven Decision-Making using Partial Least Square –Structural Equation
Modeling‖. The target respondents are subject coordinators, program coordinators, heads,
directors, deans, vice presidents and the president as well.
In this light, the undersigned humbly requests to float the survey questionnaire in your
respective school to the target respondents. Rest assured that all information that will be
gathered will be treated with utmost confidentiality.
Thank you very much.
Ediric D. Gadia (Sgd.)

Researcher
Noted by:
Dr. Arnel T. Sicat (Sgd)

Adviser
Approved by:
Dr.Ruth B. Ducut (Sgd)

Dean
50
Appendix D
Letter and Questionnaire for the HEI Leaders
Dear respondents,
This survey questionnaire is part of the dissertation entitled “Partial Least Square- Structural
Equation Modeling of the Data- Driven Decision-Making of the Higher Education
Institution Leaders”, leading to the degree Ph.D. in major Educational Management at the
University of the Assumption. The questions are mostly answered based on your own opinion and
perception; therefore there will be no correct or incorrect answers. However, the researcher humbly
requests your cooperation to answer each question as truthfully as possible and do not leave items
unanswered. This will be presented for academic purposes. Rest assured that all information
gathered will be kept strictly confidential. Thank you so much.
Ediric D. Gadia (Sgd)

Researcher
Survey Questionnaire
DIRECTION: Please fill out the necessary information /check the box provided as may be required
by the items below:
I. PROFILE
1.1. Sex Male: Female:
1.2. Highest educational attainment

Doctoral degree
Master‘s degree with doctoral units
Master‘s degree
Bachelor‘s degree with master‘s units
Bachelor‘s degree
1.3. Age __________________________
1.4. Area of specialization __________________________

1.5. Current administrative position __________________________
1.6. Length in years of administrative experience __________________________
1.7. School size (total enrollees) __________________________
1.8. Number of persons supervised __________________________
1.9. Type of school
State University/ College (SUC)
Local College/ University (LCU)
1.10. School having a team for data collection and analysis? Yes No
51
II. LEVEL OF CONDITIONS FOR DATA USE

The following statements are concerned about the level of conditions for data use in your
institution. These data include information from the registrar, guidance and admission/ testing office,
student services office, accreditation office, finance office, research and extension office, data files in
a specific program/course, (passing rates in the licensure examinations, tracer study, grades, etc),
linkages, logbooks and concerns, data from stakeholders, performance evaluation and other data
coming from school sources.
Please use the scale below and indicate your perception by putting a check mark on the
appropriate column.
4-Almost 3- More Often 2- Less Often 1- Almost Never
Our HEI: 4 3 2 1
1. Collects and receives data in a timely manner.
2. Is confident that data provided by the staff in our school are accurate.
3. Offers access to data that are relevant to the critical educational issues in
schools.
4. Provides reliable data.
5. Is able to combine data sets for analysis which are sufficiently integrated.
6. Makes it clear to what data are available throughout the year and what is
supposed to be done with the data.
7. Provides data team in the school.
8. Selects qualified data leader and staffs in the school.
9. Has a regular scheduled time to engage in collaborative data analysis and
interpretation
10. Has staff member who have access and knowledge on how to use data analysis
tools.
11. Is able to formulate questions about key educational issues.
12. Assigns staff members who are comfortable in using key assessment terms and
concepts.
13. Identifies data- driven goals and develop and implement action plans to
accomplish these goals.
14. Sees to it that all key stakeholders are committed to make better use of data.
15. Provides clear expectations and holds people accountable for the use of data at
the board, school and classroom level.
16. Values highly the collaborative efforts among the staff members in the school.
17. Models data-driven decision-making as a key part of one‘s roles and
responsibilities.
18. Has teachers who believe that data can and should be used to improve
instruction.
19. Selects and hires teachers who are open to instructional innovations based on
data about student learning.
20. Sees to it that staff members are committed to use the inquiry process and
make on-going improvements in teaching and learning.
52
III. DATA-DRIVEN DECISION-MAKING
The following statements are concerned about how often you use data as an HEI leader in
making a decision. Data include information from the registrar, guidance and admission/ testing
office, student services office, accreditation office, finance office, research and extension office, data
files in a specific program/course, (passing rates in the licensure examinations, tracer study, grades,
etc), linkages, logbooks and concerns, data from stakeholders, performance evaluation and other
data coming from school sources
Please use the scale below and indicate your response by putting a check mark on the
appropriate column.
4-Almost 3- More Often 2- Less Often 1- Almost Never
I use data to: 4 3 2 1

1. Generate potential elements of the school vision.
2. Formulate a vision and mission statement.
3. Develop mechanisms for implementing the school vision and mission.
4. Align the strategic directions of the institution with the school vision and
mission.
5. Formulate broad and long-term goals that will define the accomplishment of
the school vision and mission.
6. Identify the Key Results Areas aligned with the school vision and mission.
7. Make decisions in aligning resources with the school vision and mission
8. Initiate discussions with stakeholders on the impact of the school vision and
mission to the community.
9. Develop specific, quantifiable and realistic objectives that measure the
articulation of the school vision and mission.
10. Revisit the school vision and mission.
11. Generate approaches to curriculum enhancement and/or improvement.
12. Adopt curricular trends and innovations.
13. Develop instructional design for curricular programs.
14. Implement an Outcomes-Based Teaching and Learning.
15. Formulate a functional Professional Development Program.
16. Evaluate the instructional efficiency of the school.
17. Understand the relationship of instructional delivery and student performance.
18. Support policy decisions related to instructional resources.
19. Identify problems in student learning.
20. Design strategic intervention activities that will enhance and/or improve
instruction.
53
21. Create an environment that enhances students‘ development.

22. Guide and monitor individual professional development plans and progress for
continuous improvement of teaching and learning.
23. Provide fair treatment to subordinates.
24. Advocate programs that promote success for all students.
25. Develop an effective communication line with and among subordinates.
26. Provide ongoing feedback, assessments and evaluation methods that improve
school and student achievements.
27. Identify and use high-quality research-based strategies and practices that are
appropriate in the local context to enhance learning for every student.
28. Judge objectively my performance as education manager.
29. Discern my strength and weaknesses in dealing with the stakeholders.
30. Evaluate my ethical and professional behavior.
31. Advocate and create collaborative systems and distributive leadership
responsibilities that support student and staff learning and well-being.
32. Understand the larger context of the community which affects educational
opportunities for students.
33. Mobilize community resources for the benefit of student learning.
34. Develop approaches to school stakeholders that reflect their concern.
35. Talk to political decision makers for the improvement of students' educational
opportunities by developing programs/courses that will soon benefit the
community and the whole country in general.
36. Collaborate with community leaders in giving community outreach programs.
37. Develop extension programs for the community.
54
Appendix E
List of tables
Table 1
Convergent Validity Statistics of the Level of Conditions for Data Use
Indicator/Item Composite Cronbach's

Conditions for Data Use AVE
Loading Reliability Alpha
A. Data Quality .585 .893 .856
DQ1 0.755
DQ2 0.801
DQ3 0.759
DQ4 0.594
DQ5 0.871
DQ6 0.783
B. Data Capacity .744 .953 .942

DCA1 0.908
DCA2 0.824
DCA3 0.891
DCA4 0.924
DCA5 0.804
DCA6 0.871
DCA7 0.807
C. Data Culture .729 .949 .938

DCU1 0.897
DCU2 0.877
DCU3 0.873
DCU4 0.801
DCU5 0.774
DCU6 0.869
DCU7 0.876
Note: All indicator/item loadings are statistically significant (p <.001)
55
Table 2
Convergent Validity Statistics of the Data-Driven Decision-Making
Indicator/Item Composite Cronbach's

DDDM-Four Leadership Dimensions AVE
Loading Reliability Alpha
1. Leadership in School Vision and
.682 .955 .947
Mission
VM1 0.837
VM2 0.681
VM3 0.778
VM4 0.985
VM5 0.871
VM6 0.928
VM7 0.886
VM8 0.793
VM9 0.819
VM10 0.727
2. Leadership School Instruction 0.643 .947 .938
INS1 0.758
INS2 0.837
INS3 0.834
INS4 0.699
INS5 0.812
INS6 0.788
INS7 0.830
INS8 0.827
INS9 0.839
INS10 0.785
3. Leadership School Organizational
.578 .931 .918
Operation and Moral Perspective
OPMP1 0.869
OPMP2 0.802
OPMP3 0.732
OPMP4 0.763
OPMP5 0.628
OPMP6 0.816
OPMP7 0.663
OPMP8 0.795
OPMP9 0.786
OPMP10 0.714
4. Leadership in Collaborative,
.766 .958 .949
Partnership and Larger- Context Politics
CPLP1 0.767
CPLP2 0.858
CPLP3 0.845
CPLP4 0.908
CPLP5 0.937
CPLP6 0.895
CPLP7 0.904
Note: All indicator/item loadings are statistically significant (p <.001)
56
Table 3
Discriminant Validity Statistics for the Data-Driven
Decision-Making
Sch Org Operation

Partnership and
Larger Context
Sch Vision and

Data Capacity
Sch Instruction
Collaborative
Data Culture
Data Quality
Perspective
and Moral
Mission
Politics
Collaborative Partnership
0.836
and Larger Context Politics
Data Capacity 0.589 0.843
Data Culture 0.603 0.815 0.831
Data Quality 0.526 0.804 0.757 0.794
Sch Instruction 0.800 0.648 0.690 0.593 0.799

Sch Org Operation and
0.783 0.591 0.666 0.565 0.761 0.800
Moral Perspective
Sch Vision and Mission 0.736 0.653 0.656 0.616 0.778 0.697 0.809
57
Table 7
Effects of HEIs Conditions for Data Use on Data-Driven Decision-Making
Path Standard p-
Interpretation
coefficient Error value
DQuality  VM 0.171 0.056 0.001 Effect significant
DQuality  INS 0.078 0.057 0.085 Effect nonsignificant
DQuality  OPMP 0.137 0.056 0.008 Effect significant
DQuality  CPLP 0.095 0.057 0.047 Effect significant
DCapacity  VM 0.260 0.055 0.000 Effect significant
DCapacity  INS 0.210 0.056 0.000 Effect significant
DCapacity  OPMP 0.060 0.057 0.145 Effect nonsignificant
DCapacity  CPLP 0.236 0.055 0.000 Effect significant
DCulture  VM 0.313 0.055 0.000 Effect significant
DCulture  INS 0.461 0.054 0.000 Effect significant
DCulture  OPMP 0.532 0.053 0.000 Effect significant
DCulture  CPLP 0.345 0.055 0.000 Effect significant
Legend:
DQuality = Data Quality
DCapacity =Data Capacity
DCulture = Data Culture
VM = Leadership Mission and Vision;
INS= Leadership in School Instruction;
OPMP= Leadership in School Organizational Operation and Moral Perspective and
CPLP= Leadership in Collaborative, Partnership and Larger- Context politics
Higher Education Institution (HEI) HEI Leaders Area of Specialization

Leaders Characteristics (Categorical)
Age = Age EAS = Education, Arts and Sciences- Reference

Category
Sex = Sex
Educ = Highest Educational Attainment
Agri = Agriculture
Position = Administrative Position
AHS = Allied Health Studies
Admin-Exp = Administrative Experience
BAGG = Buss., Accountancy and Good
Schoolsize = School Size
Governance
Supervi = Number of Person Supervised
ECAF = Engineering, Computer and Allied Field
Stype = Type of School
Others = Other Area of Specialization
Dteam = Data Team
58
Table 8
Moderating Effects of Leader Characteristics on the Relationship between Data Quality and
Path Standard
coefficient Error p-value Interpretation
A. Main Effect
Dquality  VM 0.171 0.056 0.0000 Significant
Dquality  INS 0.078 0.057 0.0510 Nonsignificant
Dquality  OPMP 0.137 0.056 0.0000 Significant
Dquality  CPLP 0.095 0.057 0.0000 Significant
B. Moderating Effect
Age* Dquality  VM 0.0560 0.057 0.1620 Nonsignificant
Sex* Dquality VM 0.1890 0.056 0.0000 Significant
Educ* Dquality VM 0.0620 0.057 0.1370 Nonsignificant
Position*Dquality  VM -0.0830 0.057 0.0720 Nonsignificant
admin-exp* Dquality  VM -0.0320 0.057 0.2890 Nonsignificant
SchoolSize* Dquality  VM -0.0040 0.058 0.4730 Nonsignificant
Supervi* Dquality VM 0.0740 0.057 0.0960 Nonsignificant
SType* Dquality  VM 0.1270 0.056 0.0130 Significant
Dteam* Dquality  VM 0.0560 0.057 0.1650 Nonsignificant
Area of Specialization:
Agri* Dquality  VM -0.0480 0.057 0.1990 Nonsignificant
AHS* Dquality  VM -0.1110 0.057 0.0250 Significant
BAGG* Dquality  VM -0.0530 0.057 0.1790 Nonsignificant
ECAF* Dquality  VM -0.1790 0.056 0.0000 Significant
Others* Dquality  VM 0.0210 0.057 0.3560 Nonsignificant
Age* Dquality  INS -0.0060 0.057 0.4560 Nonsignificant
Sex * Dquality INS -0.1280 0.056 0.0120 Significant
Educ* Dquality INS 0.0270 0.057 0.3160 Nonsignificant
Position*Dquality  INS -0.0300 0.057 0.3020 Nonsignificant
admin-exp* Dquality  INS 0.0490 0.057 0.1980 Nonsignificant
SchoolSize* Dquality INS -0.0120 0.057 0.4190 Nonsignificant
Supervi* Dquality INS 0.1470 0.056 0.0050 Significant
SType* Dquality  INS 0.0330 0.057 0.2850 Nonsignificant
Dteam* Dquality  INS 0.0360 0.057 0.2630 Nonsignificant
Agri* Dquality  INS 0.0460 0.057 0.2100 Nonsignificant
AHS* Dquality  INS 0.1850 0.056 0.0000 Significant
BAGG* Dquality  INS -0.0710 0.057 0.1050 Nonsignificant
59
ECAF* Dquality  INS -0.0350 0.057 0.2720 Nonsignificant

Others* Dquality INS -0.0240 0.057 0.3390 Nonsignificant
Age* Dquality  OPMP 0.0280 0.057 0.3140 Nonsignificant
Sex * Dquality OPMP -0.0900 0.057 0.0580 Nonsignificant
Educ* Dquality OPMP -0.1590 0.056 0.0020 Significant
Position*Dquality  OPMP -0.1000 0.057 0.0400 Significant
admin-exp*Dquality OPMP 0.0570 0.057 0.1610 Nonsignificant
SchoolSize*Dquality OPMP -0.0040 0.058 0.4750 Nonsignificant
Supervi* Dquality OPMP 0.3060 0.055 0.0000 Significant
SType* Dquality  OPMP 0.1480 0.056 0.0040 Significant
Dteam* Dquality  OPMP 0.0230 0.057 0.3460 Nonsignificant
Agri* Dquality  OPMP -0.0580 0.057 0.1540 Nonsignificant
AHS* Dquality  OPMP 0.0710 0.057 0.1080 Nonsignificant
BAGG* Dquality  OPMP -0.0850 0.057 0.0680 Nonsignificant
ECAF* Dquality  OPMP 0.0770 0.057 0.0890 Nonsignificant
Others* Dquality OPMP -0.0460 0.057 0.2130 Nonsignificant
Age* Dquality  CPLP 0.0710 0.057 0.1060 Nonsignificant
Sex * Dquality CPLP -0.2250 0.056 0.0000 Significant
Educ* Dquality CPLP 0.1540 0.056 0.0030 Significant
Position*Dquality  CPLP -0.0270 0.057 0.3210 Nonsignificant
admin-exp* Dquality  CPLP -0.0520 0.057 0.1800 Nonsignificant
SchoolSize* Dquality  CPLP -0.0640 0.057 0.1310 Nonsignificant
Supervi* Dquality CPLP 0.1670 0.056 0.0020 Significant
SType* Dquality  CPLP -0.0190 0.057 0.3720 Nonsignificant
Dteam* Dquality  CPLP -0.0560 0.057 0.1650 Nonsignificant
Agri* Dquality  CPLP -0.0370 0.057 0.2580 Nonsignificant
AHS* Dquality  CPLP 0.1280 0.056 0.0120 Significant
BAGG* Dquality  CPLP -0.0770 0.057 0.0890 Nonsignificant
ECAF* Dquality  CPLP 0.0010 0.058 0.4900 Nonsignificant
Others* Dquality  CPLP 0.0130 0.057 0.4130 Nonsignificant
60
Table 9
Moderating Effects of Leader Characteristics on the Relationship between Data Capacity and
Path Standard p-
coefficient Error value Interpretation
A. Main Effect
DCapacity  VM 0.260 0.055 0.000 Significant
DCapacity  INS 0.210 0.056 0.000 Significant
DCapacity  OPMP 0.060 0.057 0.145 Nonsignificant
DCapacity  CPLP 0.236 0.055 0.000 Significant
Age* DCapacity  VM 0.084 0.057 0.071 Nonsignificant
Sex* DCapacity VM 0.135 0.056 0.009 Significant
Educ* DCapacity VM 0.075 0.057 0.095 Nonsignificant
Position* DCapacity  VM -0.010 0.057 0.430 Nonsignificant
admin-exp* DCapacity  VM 0.042 0.057 0.230 Nonsignificant
SchoolSize* DCapacity  VM 0.056 0.057 0.164 Nonsignificant
Supervi* DCapacity VM 0.169 0.056 0.001 Significant
SType* DCapacity  VM -0.170 0.056 0.001 Significant
Dteam* DCapacity  VM -0.067 0.057 0.120 Nonsignificant
Agri* DCapacity  VM -0.085 0.057 0.067 Nonsignificant
AHS* DCapacity  VM 0.074 0.057 0.098 Nonsignificant
BAGG* DCapacity  VM 0.016 0.057 0.390 Nonsignificant
ECAF* DCapacity  VM 0.086 0.057 0.065 Nonsignificant
Others* DCapacity  VM 0.077 0.057 0.088 Nonsignificant
Age* DCapacity  INS -0.006 0.057 0.458 Nonsignificant
Sex * DCapacity INS -0.086 0.057 0.065 Nonsignificant
Educ* DCapacity INS 0.161 0.056 0.002 Significant
Position* DCapacity  INS -0.005 0.057 0.464 Nonsignificant
admin-exp* DCapacity  INS -0.013 0.057 0.409 Nonsignificant
SchoolSize* DCapacity  INS -0.061 0.057 0.144 Nonsignificant
Supervi* DCapacity INS 0.155 0.056 0.003 Significant
SType* DCapacity  INS -0.108 0.057 0.029 Significant
Dteam* DCapacity  INS 0.011 0.057 0.424 Nonsignificant
Agri* DCapacity  INS 0.076 0.057 0.092 Nonsignificant
AHS* DCapacity  INS 0.004 0.058 0.470 Nonsignificant
BAGG* DCapacity  INS -0.032 0.057 0.290 Nonsignificant
ECAF* DCapacity  INS 0.086 0.057 0.064 Nonsignificant
Others* DCapacity  INS 0.019 0.057 0.372 Nonsignificant
61
Age* DCapacity  OPMP 0.065 0.057 0.126 Nonsignificant

Sex * DCapacity OPMP 0.077 0.057 0.089 Nonsignificant
Educ* DCapacity OPMP 0.072 0.057 0.104 Nonsignificant
Position* DCapacity  OPMP -0.096 0.057 0.046 Significant
admin-exp* DCapacity  OPMP 0.048 0.057 0.201 Nonsignificant
SchoolSize* DCapacity  OPMP -0.060 0.057 0.148 Nonsignificant
Supervi* DCapacity OPMP 0.000 0.058 0.500 Nonsignificant
SType* DCapacity  OPMP -0.013 0.057 0.410 Nonsignificant
Dteam* DCapacity  OPMP 0.053 0.057 0.178 Nonsignificant
Agri* DCapacity  OPMP -0.096 0.057 0.046 Significant
AHS* DCapacity  OPMP 0.004 0.058 0.475 Nonsignificant
BAGG* DCapacity  OPMP -0.055 0.057 0.166 Nonsignificant
ECAF* DCapacity  OPMP 0.055 0.057 0.169 Nonsignificant
Others* DCapacity  OPMP 0.014 0.057 0.406 Nonsignificant
Age* DCapacity  CPLP -0.074 0.057 0.098 Nonsignificant
Sex * DCapacity CPLP -0.122 0.056 0.016 Significant
Educ* DCapacity CPLP 0.208 0.056 0.000 Significant
Position* DCapacity  CPLP -0.021 0.057 0.356 Nonsignificant
admin-exp* DCapacity  CPLP -0.061 0.057 0.143 Nonsignificant
SchoolSize* DCapacity  CPLP -0.047 0.057 0.204 Nonsignificant
Supervi* DCapacity CPLP 0.094 0.057 0.048 Significant
SType* DCapacity  CPLP 0.079 0.057 0.082 Nonsignificant
Dteam* DCapacity  CPLP 0.145 0.056 0.005 Significant
Agri* DCapacity  CPLP -0.127 0.056 0.013 Significant
AHS* DCapacity  CPLP -0.031 0.057 0.294 Nonsignificant
BAGG* DCapacity  CPLP 0.052 0.057 0.181 Nonsignificant
ECAF* DCapacity  CPLP 0.159 0.056 0.002 Significant
Others* DCapacity  CPLP 0.051 0.057 0.186 Nonsignificant
62
Table 10
Moderating Effects of Leader Characteristics on the Relationship between Data Culture and
Path Standard p-
coefficient Error value Interpretation
A. Main Effect
DCulture  VM 0.659 0.052 0.000 Significant
DCulture  INS 0.575 0.053 0.000 Significant
DCulture  OPMP 0.578 0.053 0.000 Significant
DCulture  CPLP 0.547 0.053 0.000 Significant
Sex* DCulture  VM 0.127 0.056 0.012 Significant
Age* DCulture VM 0.096 0.057 0.046 Significant
Educ* DCulture VM 0.208 0.056 0.000 Significant
Position*DCulture  VM 0.000 0.058 0.498 Nonsignificant
admin-exp* DCulture  VM 0.000 0.058 0.497 Nonsignificant
SchoolSize* DCulture  VM -0.009 0.057 0.435 Nonsignificant
Supervi* DCulture VM -0.110 0.057 0.026 Signifcant
SType* DCulture  VM 0.213 0.056 0.000 Signifcant
Dteam* DCulture  VM 0.216 0.056 0.000 Signifcant
Agri* DCulture  VM -0.022 0.057 0.354 Nonsignificant
AHS* DCulture  VM -0.108 0.057 0.028 Signifcant
BAGG* DCulture  VM -0.030 0.057 0.302 Nonsignificant
ECAF* DCulture  VM 0.042 0.057 0.232 Nonsignificant
Others* DCulture  VM -0.029 0.057 0.306 Nonsignificant
Sex* DCulture  INS 0.226 0.056 0.000 Signifcant
Age* DCulture INS -0.055 0.057 0.169 Nonsignificant
Educ* DCulture INS 0.036 0.057 0.265 Nonsignificant
Position*DCulture  INS 0.016 0.057 0.390 Nonsignificant
admin-exp* DCulture  INS 0.035 0.057 0.269 Nonsignificant
SchoolSize* DCulture  INS -0.042 0.057 0.230 Nonsignificant
Supervi* DCulture INS -0.001 0.058 0.491 Nonsignificant
SType* DCulture  INS -0.056 0.057 0.162 Nonsignificant
Dteam* DCulture  INS 0.087 0.057 0.063 Nonsignificant
Agri* DCulture  INS -0.039 0.057 0.246 Nonsignificant
AHS* DCulture  INS 0.129 0.056 0.012 Signifcant
BAGG* DCulture  INS 0.022 0.057 0.351 Nonsignificant
ECAF* DCulture  INS 0.148 0.056 0.004 Signifcant
63
Others* DCulture  INS 0.001 0.058 0.493 Nonsignificant

Sex* DCulture  OPMP 0.142 0.056 0.006 Signifcant
Age* DCulture OPMP -0.087 0.057 0.064 Nonsignificant
Educ* DCulture OPMP -0.085 0.057 0.069 Nonsignificant
Position*DCulture  OPMP -0.055 0.057 0.169 Nonsignificant
admin-exp* DCulture  OPMP 0.040 0.057 0.241 Nonsignificant
SchoolSize* DCulture  OPMP -0.122 0.056 0.015 Signifcant
Supervi* DCulture OPMP -0.006 0.057 0.460 Nonsignificant
SType* DCulture  OPMP -0.079 0.057 0.082 Nonsignificant
Dteam* DCulture  OPMP 0.036 0.057 0.263 Nonsignificant
Agri* DCulture  OPMP -0.025 0.057 0.335 Nonsignificant
AHS* DCulture  OPMP 0.133 0.056 0.009 Signifcant
BAGG* DCulture  OPMP 0.035 0.057 0.274 Nonsignificant
ECAF* DCulture  OPMP 0.117 0.057 0.020 Signifcant
Others* DCulture  OPMP 0.056 0.057 0.164 Nonsignificant
Sex* DCulture  CPLP 0.204 0.056 0.000 Signifcant
Age* DCulture CPLP 0.015 0.057 0.398 Nonsignificant
Educ* DCulture CPLP 0.132 0.056 0.010 Signifcant
Position*DCulture  CPLP 0.005 0.057 0.466 Nonsignificant
admin-exp* DCulture  CPLP -0.091 0.057 0.055 Nonsignificant
SchoolSize* DCulture  CPLP 0.055 0.057 0.167 Nonsignificant
Supervi* DCulture CPLP 0.051 0.057 0.185 Nonsignificant
SType* DCulture  CPLP -0.031 0.057 0.297 Nonsignificant
Dteam* DCulture  CPLP 0.110 0.057 0.027 Signifcant
Agri* DCulture  CPLP -0.019 0.057 0.368 Nonsignificant
AHS* DCulture  CPLP 0.066 0.057 0.125 Nonsignificant
BAGG* DCulture  CPLP -0.068 0.057 0.116 Nonsignificant
ECAF* DCulture  CPLP 0.146 0.056 0.005 Signifcant
Others* DCulture  CPLP -0.041 0.057 0.240 Nonsignificant
64
Table 11
Path Coefficients, Standard Errors and P-values of the Parameters of the
Emerging Data-Driven Decision-Making Model
Path Standard
coefficient Error p-value Interpretation
A. Main Effect
Dquality  VM 0.171 0.056 0.0000 Significant
Dquality  INS 0.078 0.057 0.0510 Nonsignificant
Dquality  OPMP 0.137 0.056 0.0000 Significant
Dquality  CPLP 0.095 0.057 0.0000 Significant
DCapacity  VM 0.260 0.055 0.000 Significant
DCapacity  INS 0.210 0.056 0.000 Significant
DCapacity  OPMP 0.060 0.057 0.145 Nonsignificant
DCapacity  CPLP 0.236 0.055 0.000 Significant
DCulture  VM 0.659 0.052 0.000 Significant
DCulture  INS 0.575 0.053 0.000 Significant
DCulture  OPMP 0.578 0.053 0.000 Significant
DCulture  CPLP 0.547 0.053 0.000 Significant
Sex* Dquality VM 0.1890 0.056 0.000 Significant
Sex* Dquality INS -0.1280 0.056 0.012 Significant
Sex* Dquality CPLP -0.2250 0.056 0.000 Significant
Sex* DCapacity VM 0.135 0.056 0.009 Significant
Sex* DCapacity CPLP -0.122 0.056 0.016 Significant
Sex* DCulture  VM 0.127 0.056 0.012 Significant
Sex* DCulture  INS 0.226 0.056 0.000 Significant
Sex* DCulture  OPMP 0.142 0.056 0.006 Significant
Sex* DCulture  CPLP 0.204 0.056 0.000 Significant
Age* DCulture VM 0.096 0.057 0.046 Significant
SType* Dquality  VM 0.1270 0.056 0.013 Significant
SType* Dquality  OPMP 0.1480 0.056 0.004 Significant
SType* DCapacity  VM -0.170 0.056 0.001 Significant
SType* DCapacity  INS -0.108 0.057 0.029 Significant
SType* DCulture  VM 0.213 0.056 0.000 Significant
Educ* Dquality OPMP -0.1590 0.056 0.002 Significant
Educ* Dquality CPLP 0.1540 0.056 0.003 Significant
Educ* DCapacity INS 0.161 0.056 0.002 Significant
Educ* DCapacity CPLP 0.208 0.056 0.000 Significant
Educ* DCulture VM 0.208 0.056 0.000 Significant
Educ* DCulture CPLP 0.132 0.056 0.010 Significant
65
Supervi* Dquality INS 0.1470 0.056 0.005 Significant

Supervi* Dquality OPMP 0.3060 0.055 0.000 Significant
Supervi* Dquality CPLP 0.1670 0.056 0.002 Significant
Supervi* DCapacity VM 0.169 0.056 0.001 Significant
Supervi* DCapacity INS 0.155 0.056 0.003 Significant
Supervi* DCapacity CPLP 0.094 0.057 0.048 significant
Supervi* DCulture VM -0.110 0.057 0.026 Signifcant
Position*Dquality  OPMP -0.1000 0.057 0.040 Significant
Position* DCapacity  OPMP -0.096 0.057 0.046 Significant
Dteam* DCapacity  CPLP 0.145 0.056 0.005 Significant
Dteam* DCulture  VM 0.216 0.056 0.000 Significant
Dteam* DCulture  CPLP 0.110 0.057 0.027 Significant
SchoolSize* DCulture  OPMP -0.122 0.056 0.015 Significant
AHS* Dquality  VM -0.1110 0.057 0.025 Significant
AHS* Dquality  INS 0.1850 0.056 0.000 Significant
AHS* Dquality  CPLP 0.1280 0.056 0.012 Significant
AHS* DCulture  VM -0.108 0.057 0.028 Significant
AHS* DCulture  INS 0.129 0.056 0.012 Significant
AHS* DCulture  OPMP 0.133 0.056 0.009 Significant
ECAF* Dquality  VM -0.1790 0.056 0.000 Significant
ECAF* DCapacity  CPLP 0.159 0.056 0.002 Significant
ECAF* DCulture  INS 0.148 0.056 0.004 Significant
ECAF* DCulture  OPMP 0.117 0.057 0.020 Significant
ECAF* DCulture  CPLP 0.146 0.056 0.005 Significant
Agri* DCapacity  OPMP -0.096 0.057 0.046 Significant
Agri* DCapacity  CPLP -0.127 0.056 0.013 Significant
66
Curriculum Vitae
EDIRIC DAMPIL GADIA
#2 Ramos St.,Corner Brill, West Bajac Bajac, Olongapo City

#172 Purok 3, Brgy. Dalao, Dinalupihan, Bataan
+63-908-144-6367
ediric321@gmail.com
Educational Background
June 2010- 2016 University of the Assumption
City of San Fernando, Pampanga
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph. D.) major in Educational Management
Dissertation: Partial Least Square- Structural Equation Modeling
of the Data-Driven Decision-Making of the Higher Education
Institution Leaders
Date Graduated: April 14, 2016
2009- 2010 St. Joseph College- Olongapo

Elicaño St., East Bajac Bajac, Olongapo City
Professional Education Subjects
Date Completed: March 2010
2004-2009 Bataan Peninsula State University- Main Campus

City of Balanga, Bataan
Master of Arts in Education major in Mathematics
Thesis: Heuristic Learning of College Students and their
Achievement in Plane Trigonometry: Implication to Mathematics
Instructions
Date Graduated: April 1, 2009
1998-2004 Columban College Inc.

#1 Mt. Apo St., East Tapinac, Olongapo City
Bachelor of Science in Mathematics
Thesis: Difficulties Encountered by the Fourth Year Non-
Mathematics major Students in Solving Mathematical Problems
Date Graduated: March 31, 2004
Eligibility
April 3, 2011 Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) - Secondary major in

Mathematics
License No. 1089265
Rating: 81%
67
Teaching and Professional Experience
July 15, 2013 to present Dean, College of Education, Arts and Sciences
Gordon College, Olongapo City
Jan. 2011 up to present Mathematics and Physics Instructor (Plantilla)

College of Education, Arts and Sciences
June 2007 up to Dec. 2010 Mathematics and Physics Instructor (Contract of Service)
College of Arts and Sciences
June 2005 up to April 2007 Mathematics and Physics Instructor (Fulltime)

Arts & Sciences Department, Central Luzon College of
Science and Technology, Olongapo City
Research and Publication
Differential Calculus ©2015

ISBN 978-971-9676-12-6
Jimcyzville Publications, Malabon Metro Manila
Authors: Imelda Radog- Lactuan, Edwin Ibañez, Ph. D., Sherelle Lou Icutan, Mel
Abas, Ph. D., Darwin Paguio, Ediric Gadia and Mark Denice Baquiran
1st International Conference on Multidisciplinary Research and Statistical Modeling 2014―Best

Practices in Research and Statistical Data Analysis‖
Paper Presenter entitled ―Modeling School Image and Student‘s Satisfaction, Trust
and Loyalty using PLS-SEM‖ held on October 23, 2014 at Eurotel North Edsa, Quezon
City, Philippines. Johnny T. Amora, Ediric D. Gadia and Darwin P. Paguio
Plane Trigonometry ©2014

ISBN 978-971-9161-88-1
Authors: Edwin Ibañez, Ph. D., Darwin P. Paguio, Ediric D. Gadia, Dynah D.
Soriano, Geraldine Fabay and Mark Denice Baquiran
Mathematics of Investment ©2013

ISBN 978-971-0161-28-7
Authors: Edwin Ibañez, Ph. D., Ediric D. Gadia, Dynah D. Soriano, Darwin P.
Paguio, Eduard C. Taganap and Elvira B. Aniciete
68
Modern College Algebra ©2013

ISBN 978-971-0161-26-3
Authors: Edwin Ibañez, Ph. D., Darwin P. Paguio, Ediric D. Gadia, Dynah Soriano,
Imelda Esguerra, Lester Arabatigue, Marc Garvida and Maria Georgette Elnar
Statistics with Computer Based Discussions ©2012

ISBN 978-971-0161-13-3
Authors: Darwin P. Paguio, Ediric D. Gadia, Gloria P. Domantay, Ph. D., Ma.
Rowena Bardiaga, Leby Fastidio and Romeo Talvo
Personal Information
Age : 34 years old
Date of Birth : January 09, 1982
Place of Birth : Dinalupihan, Bataan
Civil Status : Single
Citizenship : Filipino
Gender : Male
Height : 5‘5‖
Weight : 130 lbs.

PLS SEM of The DDDM of HEI Leaders Final Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLS SEM of The DDDM of HEI Leaders Final Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

The increasing demand for accountability is increasingly pushing school leaders to

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

which leadership practices enable or constrain district office personnel's contributions to

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

Conditions for Data Use

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

Data-driven decision-making has become an important topic linked to accountability,

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

Leadership in School Vision and Mission. The Glossary of Education Reform

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

Figure 1: Proposed Hypothesized Model of HEI Leaders Data-Driven Decision-Making

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

Number Verbal Interpretation Range

Partial least square–structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to determine

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

Conditions for Data Use

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

HEI Leaders’ Data-Driven Decision-Making

Partial Least Square- Structural Equation Models of Data-Driven Decision-Making

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

Model fit and quality indices

Average path coefficient (APC) = 0.242, P<0.001

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

Partial Least Square- Structural Equation Models of Data-Driven Decision-Making

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

Model fit and quality indices

Average path coefficient (APC)=0.099, P=0.020

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

Model fit and quality indices

Average path coefficient (APC)=0.101, P=0.019

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

The relationship of data capacity and leadership in school instruction was

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

Model fit and quality indices

Average path coefficient (APC)=0.109, P=0.014

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

Figure 6: Emerging Model of the HEI Leaders Data-Driven Decision-Making

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

leadership dimensions of school‘s vision and collaborative partnerships. Thus, it was

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF THE ASSUMPTION GRADUATE SCHOOL

Different areas of specialization also are significant moderators. Specifically, allied