40

Table 5 Significant Relationship Between the Extent of Utilization and

the Profile of the Respondents

In finding the relationship between the extent of utilization and the profile of the

respondents which the age, the gender, the educational attainment, the occupation of the parents,

and the family income have different tables to avoid misconceptions on the data gathered.

Table 5.1 Significant Relationship Between the Extent of Utilization

and the Age Profile of the Respondents

N=96
E.U. A O SO SE N
TOTAL
AGE 5 4 3 2 1
14 - 17 25 (25.03) 22 (25.4) 39 (40.8) 3 (2.8) - 89
18 - 21 1 (1.7) 0 (1.4) 5 (2.8) 0 (0.2) - 6
22 - 25 1 (0.3) 0 (0.23) 0 (0.5) 0 (0.03) - 1
TOTAL 27 22 44 3 - 96

X2t (8df, 0.05) = 15.51 Decision: Verbal Description:

X2c (8df, 0.05) = 6.244 Accept HO There is no significant relationship.

Table 5.1 which shows the relationship between the extent of utilization and the age profile

of the respondents. In this case, we have the expected value for each of the data presented. For the

critical value of X2, we have 15.51 and the computed value of X2, we have 6.244. In this sense,

the critical value of X2 is greater than the value of the computed value of X2 which having the

decision of accepting the null hypothesis (HO) which is that, there is no significant relationship

between the two.

 41

Table 5.2 Significant Relationship Between the Extent of Utilization

and the Gender Profile of the Respondents

N=96

E.U. A O SO SE N
TOTAL
GENDER 5 4 3 2 1
MALE 14 (13.2) 4 (10.8) 28 (22.03) 1 (1.0) - 47
FEMALE 13 (14.0) 18 (11.2) 17 (23.0) 1 (1.02) - 49
TOTAL 27 22 44 3 - 96
X2t (4df, 0.05) = 9.35 Decision: Verbal Description:
2
X c (4df, 0.05) = 11.7204 Reject HO There is a significant relationship.

In table 5.2, we have the relationship between the extent of utilization and the gender

profile of the respondents. In this way, the critical value of X2 has 9.35 while the computed value

of X2 has 11.7204 which is greater than the critical value having the decision of rejecting the null

hypothesis HO which there is significant relationship between the gender of the respondents and

the extent of utilization.

 42

Table 5.3 Significant Relationship Between the Extent of Utilization and the Profile

of the Educational Attainment of the Parents of the Respondents

N=96

E.U. A O SO SE N
TOTAL
E.A 5 4 3 2 1
ELEMENTARY LEVEL 4 (6.9) 10 (7.1) - - - 14
HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL 16 (12.2) 9 (12.8) - - - 25
COLLEGE LEVEL 5 (6.4) 8 (6.6) - - - 13
ELEMENTARY GRADUATE 3 (4.4) 6 (4.6) - - - 9
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 8 (8.3) 9 (8.7) - - - 17
COLLEGE GRADUATE 10 (6.9) 4 (7.1) - - - 14
N/A or DECEASED 1 (2.0) 3 (2.0) - - - 4
TOTAL 47 49 - - - 96

X2t (24df, 0.05) = 36.42 Decision: Verbal Description:

X2c (24df, 0.05) = 9.97 Accept HO There is no significant relationship.

In table 5.3 we have the relationship between the extent of utilization and the educational

attainment of the respondents’ parents as part of their profile information. In this way, the critical

value of X2 has 36.42 while the computed value of X2 has 9.97 which is less than the critical value

having the decision of accepting the null hypothesis HO which there is no significant relationship

between the educational attainment of the parents of the respondents and the extent of utilization.
 43

Table 5.4 Significant Relationship Between the Extent of Utilization and

the Profile of the Parents Occupation

N = 96
E.U A O SO SE N
TOTAL
OCCUPATION 5 4 3 2 1
BABY SITTER 0 (0.5) 1 (0.5) - - - 1
BUSINESSMAN/WOMAN 1 (0.5) 0 (0.5) - - - 1
CAREGIVER 1 (0.5) 0 (0.5) - - - 1
CARPENTER 2 (2.0) 2 (2.0) - - - 4
CHEF/COOK 0 0 - - - 0
COMPANY EMPLOYER 2 (2.0) 1 (1.5) - - - 3
COMPUTER TECHNICIAN 1 (0.5) 0 (0.5) - - - 1
CONSTRUCTION WORKER 0 0 - - - 0
DECEASED / N/A 7 (4.9) 3 (5.1) - - - 10
DRIVER 4 (4.9) 6 (5.1) - - - 10
ELECTRICIAN 1 (0.5) 0 (0.5) - - - 1
FARMER 1 (0.5) 4 (2.6) - - - 5
FISHERMAN 1 (0.5) 1 (1.0) - - - 2
FOREMAN 0 0 - - - 0
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE 5 (4.4) 4 (4.6) - - - 9
HOUSEMAID/BOY 0 (0.5) 1 (0.5) - - - 1
HOUSE-HUSBAND/WIFE/HOUSEKEEPER 12 (13.7) 16 (14.3) - - - 28
LABORER 0 (1.0) 2 (1.0) - - - 2
MASSAGE THERAPIST 0 0 - - - 0
NURSING AID 1 (0.5) 0 (0.5) - - - 1
OFW 1 (0.5) 0 (0.5) - - - 1
PAINTER 1 (0.5) 0 (0.5) - - - 1
PRINCIPAL 0 0 - - - 0
PUB. SCH. DIST. SUPERVISOR 0 0 - - - 0
SECURITY GUARD 1 (0.5) 0 (0.5) - - - 1
SELF-EMPLOYED 1 (2.9) 5 (3.1) - - - 6
TEACHER 0 (1.0) 2 (1.0) - - - 2
TRAINER 0 0 - - - 0
VENDOR 3 (2.0) 1 (2.0) - - - 4
WELDER/WELDING INSPECTOR 1 (0.5) 0 (0.5) - - - 1
TOTAL 47 49 - - - 96

X2t (116df, 0.05) = 137.52 Decision: Verbal Description:

X2c (116df, 0.05) = 12.25 Accept HO There is no significant relationship.
 44

In table 5.4, we have the relationship between the extent of utilization and the occupation

of the respondents’ parents as part of their profile information. We have there the critical value of

X2 has 137.52 while the computed value of X2 has 12.25 which is less than the critical value having

the decision of accepting the null hypothesis HO which there is no significant relationship between

the occupation of the parents of the respondents and the extent of utilization.

Table 5.5 Significant Relationship Between the Extent of Utilization and the Family

Monthly Income Profile of the Respondents

N = 96
E.U. A O SO SE N
TOTAL
M.I 5 4 3 2 1
1,000 - 3,000 16 (20.6) 26 (24.0) - - - 42
3,001 - 5,000 16 (12.24) 9 (12.8) - - - 25
5,001 - 7,000 9 (9.3) 10 (9.7) - - - 19
7,001 - 10,000 5 (4.41) 4 (5.0) - - - 9
10,001 and above 1 (0.5) 0 (0.5) - - - 1
TOTAL 47 49 - - - 96

X2t (16df, 0.05) = 26.30 Decision: Verbal Description:

X2c (16df, 0.05) = 4.789 Accept HO There is no significant relationship.

In table 5.5, we have the relationship between the extent of utilization and the family

monthly income of the salary of the parents of the respondents which is part of their profile

gathered. In this manner, the critical value of X2 has 26.30 while the computed value of X2 has

4.789 which is less than the critical value having the decision of accepting the null hypothesis HO

which there is no significant relationship between the family monthly income and the extent of

utilization.
 45

Table 6 Significant Relationship Between the Extent of Utilization and

the Academic Performance of the Students

N = 96

E.U. A O SO SE N
TOTAL
GRADE 5 4 3 2 1
75 - 79 13 (10.3) 8 (10.72) - - - 21
80 - 84 23 (21.1) 20 (22.0) - - - 43
85 - 89 11 (14.0) 17 (14.3) - - - 28
90 - 94 0 (2.0) 4 (2.04) - - - 4
TOTAL 47 49 - - - 96

X2t (12df, 0.05) = 21.03 Decision: Verbal Description:

X2c (12df, 0.05) = 6.95 Accept HO There is no significant relationship.

Table 6 shows the relationship between the extent of utilization and the academic

performance of the students during their Grade 8 year in school. In this manner, the critical value

of X2 has 21.03 while the computed value of X2 has 6.95 which is less than the critical value having

the decision of accepting the null hypothesis HO which there is no significant relationship between

the academic performance of the students during their Grade 8 year and the extent of utilization.