Descriptive Analysis of the Demographic Profile of Respondents

Table 1: The Gender of the Respondents

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent
Percent
Valid Female 17 56.7 56.7 56.7
Male 13 43.3 43.3 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
Table 1 shows the frequency and the percentage of the gender of the respondents. It shows that a slight
majority of the respondents are female, comprising 56.7%, while 43.3% were male.

Table 2: The Marital Status of the Respondents

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid Single 8 26.7 26.7 26.7
Married 18 60.0 60.0 86.7
Widowed/Seperated 4 13.3 13.3 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
Table 2 shows the frequency and the percentage of the marital status of the respondents. The table showed that
18 out of 30 (60%) of the respondents were married, 8 out of 30 (26.7%) were single and 4 out of 30 (13.3%) were
either widowed or separated.

Table 3: The Education of the Respondents

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid Highschool Graduate 4 13.3 13.3 13.3
College Level 8 26.7 26.7 40.0
College Graduate 15 50.0 50.0 90.0
Post Graduate 3 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
Table 3 shows the frequency and the percentage of the respondents’ educational attainment. It showed that
50% of the respondents were college students, 26.7% had attained some college level, 13.3% were high school
graduates, and the lowest percentage 10% had pursued pos graduate.

Table 4: The Sources of Income of the Respondents

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid Employmen 9 30.0 30.0 30.0
t
Business 11 36.7 36.7 66.7
Farming 6 20.0 20.0 86.7
OFW 2 6.7 6.7 93.3
Pensioner 2 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
Table 4 shows the frequency and percentage of the respondents’ sources of income. It showed that the primary
source of income of the respondents was business with a reported percentage of 36.7%, making it as the most common
source of income. It was followed closely by employment with 30% of the respondents relying on it. Farming was
recorded at 20%, while the lower percentages are consisting of overseas worker and pensioners with a percentage of
6.67% each.
 Table 5: The Age of the Respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 21-30 6 20.0 20.0 20.0
31-40 10 33.3 33.3 53.3
41-50 7 23.3 23.3 76.7
51-60 6 20.0 20.0 96.7
61-70 1 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
Table 5 shows the frequency and percentage of the age of the respondents. It showed that most of the
respondents are in the 31-40 age group with a leading 33.3%, followed by 41-50 age group with 23.3% and both the
21-30 and 51-60 age groups got 20%. The smallest portion of the respondents belongs to the 61-70 age group with
3.3%.

Inferential Statistics
Table 1: One-Sample T-Test (Total Satisfaction)
Test Value = 0
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
t df Sig. (2- Mean Lower Upper
tailed) Difference
The Gender of the 15.577 29 .000 1.43333 1.2451 1.6215
Respondents
The Total Satisfaction 27.028 29 .000 2.30000 2.1260 2.4740
of the Respondents

Total Satisfaction of the Respondents

1. Hypotheses:

Ho: The mean total satisfaction is equal to 0.

Ha: The mean total satisfaction is not equal to 0.

2. Level of Significance:

The significance level is set at a=0.05

3. Test Statistics used: One sample T-Test

4. Findings:

t = 27.028
Degrees of freedom (df)=29
p-value < 0.001
95% Confidence Interval= [2.1260-2.4740]
p-value < 0.001
The test results reveal a statistically significant mean total satisfaction with a mean difference of 2.30000, p-
value is less than the significance level (p < 0.001).

5. Conclusion:

Reject the null hypothesis (Ho). The mean total satisfaction is significantly different from 0.
The Gender of the Respondents

1. Hypotheses:

Ho: The mean score for gender is equal to 0.

Ha: The mean score for gender is not equal to 0.

2. Level of Significance:

The significance level is set at a=0.05

3. Test Statistics used: One sample T-Test

4. Findings:

t = 15.577
Degrees of freedom (df)=29
p-value < 0.001
95% Confidence Interval= [1.2451-1.6215]
The test results reveal a statistically significant mean for gender with a mean difference of 1.43333, p-value is
less than the significance level ( p < 0.001).

5. Conclusion:

Reject the null hypothesis (Ho). The mean score for gender is significantly different from 0.

Table 2: Chi-Square Test (Gender and Total Satisfaction)

Value df Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-
(2-sided) sided) sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square .006 1 .936
b
Continuity Correction .000 1 1.000
Likelihood Ratio .006 1 .936
Fisher's Exact Test 1.000 .623
Linear-by-Linear .006 1 .937
Association
N of Valid Cases 30
a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.90.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

1. Hypotheses:

Ho: There is no significant relationship between gender and total satisfaction.

Ha: There is a significant relationship between gender and total satisfaction.

2. Level of Significance:

The level of significance is set at a=0.05

3. Test Statistics used: Chi-Square Test

4. Findings:

χ² = 0.006
p-value = 0.936
Degrees of Freedom (df)=1
Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, there is no significant relationship between gender and total
satisfaction. (p-value=0.936 > a=0.05)
5. Conclusion:

Do not reject the null hypothesis (Ho.) The result shows that there’s no evidence that there’s a significant relationship
between gender and total satisfaction.

Table 3: ANOVA (Marital Status and Total Satisfaction)

Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.

Squares
Between .425 2 .213 .977 .390
Groups
Within Groups 5.875 27 .218
Total 6.300 29

1. Hypotheses:

Ho: The mean total satisfaction is equal among all marital status groups.

Ha: The mean total satisfaction is different among all marital status groups.

2. Level of Significance:

The level of significance is set at a=0.05

3. Test Statistics Used:

ANOVA

4. Findings:

F = 0.977
p-value = 0.390

The ANOVA results shows no statistical significant difference in total satisfaction among marital status groups

(p-value=0.390 > 0.05).

5. Conclusion:

Do not reject null hypothesis (Ho). There is no significant differences in total satisfaction among marital status of
the respondents.
SUMMARY OF SPSS
Frequencies

Statistics

The The The The Satisfa Satisfa Satisf Satisfacti Satisfacti The Total The Age of

Gender of Marital Education Sources of ction- ction- action on- on- Satisfactio the

the Status of the Income of Product Pricing - Services Ambianc n of the Respondents

Respond of the Respond the Sanit of the e Responde

ents Respon ents Respondent ation Crew nts

dents s

N Valid 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 1.4333 1.8667 3.5667 2.2333 2.1333 2.4667 2.433 2.2333 2.7667 2.3000 2.5333

Frequency Table

The Gender of the Respondents

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid Female 17 56.7 56.7 56.7
Male 13 43.3 43.3 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0

The Marital Status of the Respondents

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid Single 8 26.7 26.7 26.7
Married 18 60.0 60.0 86.7
Widowed/Seperated 4 13.3 13.3 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0

The Education of the Respondents

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Highschool Graduate 4 13.3 13.3 13.3
College Level 8 26.7 26.7 40.0
College Graduate 15 50.0 50.0 90.0
Post Graduate 3 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
 The Sources of Income of the Respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Employment 9 30.0 30.0 30.0
Business 11 36.7 36.7 66.7
Farming 6 20.0 20.0 86.7
OFW 2 6.7 6.7 93.3
Pensioner 2 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0

Satisfaction-Product
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Not Satisfied 4 13.3 13.3 13.3
Satisfied 18 60.0 60.0 73.3
Very Satisfied 8 26.7 26.7 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0

Satisfaction-Pricing
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Satisfied 16 53.3 53.3 53.3
Very Satisfied 14 46.7 46.7 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0

Satisfaction-Sanitation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Satisfied 17 56.7 56.7 56.7
Very Satisfied 13 43.3 43.3 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0

Satisfaction-Services of the Crew

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Satisfied 23 76.7 76.7 76.7
Very Satisfied 7 23.3 23.3 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0

Satisfaction-Ambiance
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Satisfied 7 23.3 23.3 23.3
Very Satisfied 23 76.7 76.7 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
 The Total Satisfaction of the Respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 8-12 21 70.0 70.0 70.0
13-15 9 30.0 30.0 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0

The Age of the Respondents

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 21-30 6 20.0 20.0 20.0
31-40 10 33.3 33.3 53.3
41-50 7 23.3 23.3 76.7
51-60 6 20.0 20.0 96.7
61-70 1 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0

T-Test

One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
The Gender of the Respondents 30 1.4333 .50401 .09202
The Total Satisfaction of the 30 2.3000 .46609 .08510
Respondents

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Lower Upper
Difference
The Gender of the 15.577 29 .000 1.43333 1.2451 1.6215
Respondents
The Total Satisfaction of 27.028 29 .000 2.30000 2.1260 2.4740
the Respondents
Crosstabs

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
The Gender of the 30 100.0% 0 .0% 30 100.0%
Respondents * The Total
Satisfaction of the
Respondents
 The Gender of the Respondents * The Total Satisfaction of the Respondents Crosstabulation
The Total Satisfaction of the Total
Respondents
8-12 13-15
The Gender of the Female Count 12 5 17
Respondents % within The Gender of the 70.6% 29.4% 100.0%
Respondents
Male Count 9 4 13
% within The Gender of the 69.2% 30.8% 100.0%
Respondents
Total Count 21 9 30
% within The Gender of the 70.0% 30.0% 100.0%
Respondents

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-
sided) sided) sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square .006 1 .936
b
Continuity Correction .000 1 1.000
Likelihood Ratio .006 1 .936
Fisher's Exact Test 1.000 .623
Linear-by-Linear .006 1 .937
Association
N of Valid Cases 30
a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.90.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi .015 .936
Cramer's V .015 .936
N of Valid Cases 30

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
The Marital Status of the 30 100.0% 0 .0% 30 100.0%
Respondents * The Total
Satisfaction of the
Respondents
 The Marital Status of the Respondents * The Total Satisfaction of the Respondents Crosstabulation
The Total Satisfaction of the Total
Respondents
8-12 13-15
The Marital Status of the Single Count 5 3 8
Respondents % within The Marital Status 62.5% 37.5% 100.0%
of the Respondents
Married Count 12 6 18
% within The Marital Status 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%
of the Respondents
Widowed/Seperated Count 4 0 4
% within The Marital Status 100.0% .0% 100.0%
of the Respondents
Total Count 21 9 30
% within The Marital Status 70.0% 30.0% 100.0%
of the Respondents

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 2.024 2 .364
Likelihood Ratio 3.152 2 .207
Linear-by-Linear 1.301 1 .254
Association
N of Valid Cases 30
a. 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 1.20.

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi .260 .364
Cramer's V .260 .364
N of Valid Cases 30

Oneway

ANOVA
The Total Satisfaction of the Respondents
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between Groups .425 2 .213 .977 .390
Within Groups 5.875 27 .218
Total 6.300 29
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons
The Total Satisfaction of the Respondents
LSD
(I) The Marital Status (J) The Marital Status of Mean Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
of the Respondents the Respondents Difference (I-J) Lower Bound Upper Bound
Single Married .04167 .19821 .835 -.3650 .4484
Widowed/Seperated .37500 .28565 .200 -.2111 .9611
Married Single -.04167 .19821 .835 -.4484 .3650
Widowed/Seperated .33333 .25785 .207 -.1957 .8624
Widowed/Seperated Single -.37500 .28565 .200 -.9611 .2111
Married -.33333 .25785 .207 -.8624 .1957

Nonparametric Correlations

Correlations
The Age of the The Total Satisfaction of
Respondents the Respondents
Spearman's rho The Age of the Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.100
Respondents Sig. (2-tailed) . .599
N 30 30
The Total Satisfaction of the Correlation Coefficient -.100 1.000
Respondents Sig. (2-tailed) .599 .
N 30 30

Correlations

Correlations
The Age of the Satisfaction-Total
Respondents
The Age of the Pearson Correlation 1 -.159
Respondents Sig. (2-tailed) .401
N 30 30
Satisfaction-Total Pearson Correlation -.159 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .401
N 30 30