Result- magnaye Kindly please refer to sample theses for the format and sample interpretations.

consult kyo regarding interpretations but look first for samples

1.1 Statement of the Problem This research seeks the perception of the local politicians in the 4th district of Batangas regarding the efficiency and transparency of the automated election. This study seeks to answer the following question:

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of: a. Educational attainment Table 1. Distribution of the Respondents Educational Attainment
Elected (n1=69) Percentage Frequency Frequency 9 51 9 69 13.04 73.92 13.04 100.00 Non-Elected (n2=84) Percentage Frequency Frequency 18 58 8 84 21.43 69.05 9.52 100.00

Educational Attainment 2 3 4 Total

b. Number of years in politics Table 2. Distribution of the Respondents Number of Years in Politics
Elected (n1=69) Percentage Frequency Frequency 14 19 15 21 69 20.29 27.54 21.74 30.43 100.00 Non-Elected (n2=84) Percentage Frequency Frequency 26 15 15 28 84 30.95 17.86 17.86 33.33 100.00

Number of Years in Politics 1 2 3 4 Total

2. What is the perception of the respondents on the transparency of the Automated Election System of 2010 in terms of: a. Accessibility to illiterates and disabled voters Table 3. Mean Summary of Responses according to Accessibility
Elected (n1=69) Verbal Mean Interpretation 2.57 2.59 2.58 Evident Evident Evident Non-Elected (n2=84) Verbal Mean Interpretation 2.35 2.45 2.40 Inevident Inevident Inevident

Accessibility to illiterates and disabled voters How do you find the accessibility of the voting procedures to the illiterate voters? How do you find the accessibility of the voting procedures to the disabled persons? Overall Mean

b. Accuracy of counting Table 4. Mean Summary of Responses according to Accuracy

Elected (n1=69) Verbal Mean Interpretation 3.09 3.09 Evident Evident Non-Elected (n2=84) Verbal Mean Interpretation 2.62 2.62 Evident Evident

Accuracy of counting
How would you rate the accuracy of vote counting? Overall Mean

c. Accuracy of transmission Table 5. Mean Summary of Responses according to Accuracy of Transmission

Elected (n1=69) Verbal Mean Interpretation 3.09 Evident Accuracy of transmission How would you rate the accuracy of the transmission of vote from precinct to municipal? How would you rate the accuracy of the transmission of vote from municipal to provincial? How would you rate the accuracy of the transmission of vote from provincial to national? Overall Mean Non-Elected (n2=84) Verbal Mean Interpretation 2.62 Evident

3.10

Evident

2.75

Evident

2.87 3.02

Evident Evident

2.57 2.65

Evident Evident

d. Transparency of the source code Table 6. Mean Summary of Responses according to Transparency
Elected (n1=69) Verbal Mean Interpretation 2.71 2.67 2.69 Evident Evident Evident Transparency of the Source Code How do you find the clarity of the source code of the PCOS machine? How do you find the accuracy of the source code of the PCOS machine? Overall Mean Non-Elected (n2=84) Verbal Mean Interpretation 2.58 2.63 2.61 Evident Evident Evident

3. What is the perception of the respondents on the efficiency of Automated Election System of 2010 in terms of: a. Simplicity of voting procedure Table 7. Mean Summary of Responses according to Simplicity of Voting Procedure
Elected (n1=69) Verbal Mean Interpretation 2.72 3.00 2.86 Efficient Efficient Efficient Simplicity of Voting Procedure How would you rate the time spent in looking for your name and waiting in line? How would you rate the time spent in actual voting? Overall Mean Non-Elected (n2=84) Verbal Mean Interpretation 2.60 2.74 2.67 Efficient Efficient Efficient

b. Transmission of election results Table 8. Mean Summary of Responses according to Transmission of Election Results
Elected (n1=69) Verbal Mean Interpretation Efficient 3.09 Efficient 3.09 Efficient 3.01 3.06 Efficient Transmission of Election Results How would you rate the time spent in the transmission of votes from precinct to municipal? How would you rate the time spent in the transmission of votes from municipal to provincial? How would you rate the time spent in the transmission of votes from provincial to national? Overall Mean Non-Elected (n2=84) Verbal Mean Interpretation Efficient 2.81 Efficient 2.87 Efficient 2.70 2.79 Efficient

c. Proclamation of winners

Table 9. Mean Summary of Responses according to Proclamation of Winners

Elected (n1=69) Verbal Mean Interpretation Efficient 3.20 Efficient 3.09 Efficient 2.91 3.07 Efficient Proclamation of Winners How would you rate the immediacy of the proclamation of winners in the municipal level? How would you rate the immediacy of the proclamation of winners in the provincial level? How would you rate the immediacy of the proclamation of winners in the national level? Overall Mean Non-Elected (n2=84) Verbal Mean Interpretation Efficient 2.85 Efficient 2.79 Efficient 2.60 2.75 Efficient

d. Reliability of PCOS Machines Table 10. Mean Summary of Responses according to Reliability of PCOS Machines
Elected (n1=69) Verbal Mean Interpretation 2.68 2.71 2.70 Efficient Efficient Efficient Reliability of PCOS Machines How do you find the durability of the PCOS machines? How would you rate the ability of the PCOS machines in reading and counting of votes? Overall Mean Non-Elected (n2=84) Verbal Mean Interpretation 2.57 2.62 2.60 Efficient Efficient Efficient

4. Is there any significant difference in the perception of elected and non-elected politicians and the COMELEC rules on the efficiency and transparency of the automated election system of 2010?

Table 11. Independent Sample T-Test Results for the Responses in terms of Transparency
Elected and NonElected Officials 1. Accessibility to illiterates and disabled voters 2. Accuracy of counting 3. Accuracy of transmission 4. Transparency of the source code Mean Difference 0.181 0.468 0.372 0.081 t-value 1.627 3.516 3.123 0.600 p-value 0.106 0.001 0.002 0.550 Verbal Interpretatio n NS S S NS

*Difference is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 12. Independent Sample T-Test Results for the Responses in terms of Efficiency
Elected and NonElected Officials 1. Simplicity of voting procedure 2. Transmission of election results 3. Proclamation of winners 4. Reliability of PCOS Machines Mean Difference 0.196 0.268 0.329 0.173 t-value 1.546 2.494 2.898 1.515 p-value 0.124 0.014 0.004 0.132 Verbal Interpretatio n NS S S NS

*Difference is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).

FOR THE APPENDICES.

educ Frequency 9 51 9 69 Percent 13.0 73.9 13.0 100.0 Valid Percent 13.0 73.9 13.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 13.0 87.0 100.0

Valid

2.00 3.00 4.00 Total

educ Frequency 18 58 8 84 Percent 21.4 69.0 9.5 100.0 Valid Percent 21.4 69.0 9.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 21.4 90.5 100.0

Valid

2.00 3.00 4.00 Total

years Frequency 14 19 15 21 69 Percent 20.3 27.5 21.7 30.4 100.0 Valid Percent 20.3 27.5 21.7 30.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 20.3 47.8 69.6 100.0

Valid

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Total

years Frequency 26 15 15 28 84 Percent 31.0 17.9 17.9 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 31.0 17.9 17.9 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 31.0 48.8 66.7 100.0

Valid

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Total

Descriptive Statistics N q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 p2q1 p2q2 p2q3 p2q4 p2q5 p2q6 p2q7 p2q8 p2q9 p2q10 Valid N (listwise) 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Minimum 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Maximum 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Mean 2.5652 2.5942 3.0870 3.0870 3.1014 2.8696 2.7101 2.6667 2.7246 3.0000 3.0870 3.0870 3.0145 3.2029 3.0870 2.9130 2.6812 2.7101 Std. Deviation .77608 .73402 .63568 .65841 .64500 .74583 .72965 .77964 .80228 .78591 .63568 .68038 .69648 .75886 .65841 .74240 .84875 .82429

Descriptive Statistics N q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 p2q1 p2q2 p2q3 p2q4 p2q5 p2q6 p2q7 p2q8 p2q9 p2q10 Valid N (listwise) 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 Minimum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Maximum 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Mean 2.3452 2.4524 2.6190 2.6190 2.7500 2.5714 2.5833 2.6310 2.5952 2.7381 2.8095 2.8690 2.7024 2.8452 2.7857 2.5952 2.5714 2.6190 Std. Deviation .81395 .73476 .94301 .96823 .86254 .92209 .90791 .94141 .98322 .83765 .75212 .74088 .88875 .79901 .77726 .89334 .88203 .93015

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -.03876 -.03913 .20499 .21448 .13658 .14482 -.18654 -.18152 -.05438 -.05149 .05580 .06054 .10482 .10708 -.05260 -.05182 .40056 .40093 .73082 .72134 .60721 .59897 .34906 .34405 .44569 .44279 .48108 .47635 .55409 .55182 .39801 .39723

F p1 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed .025

Sig. .874

t 1.627 1.625

df 151 144.519 151 145.778 151 146.409 151 150.997 151 150.063 151 150.827 151 149.667 151 147.169

Sig. (2-tailed) .106 .106 .001 .000 .002 .001 .550 .542 .124 .120 .014 .012 .004 .004 .132 .131

Mean Difference .18090 .18090 .46791 .46791 .37189 .37189 .08126 .08126 .19565 .19565 .26844 .26844 .32945 .32945 .17271 .17271

Std. Error Difference .11118 .11132 .13307 .12823 .11910 .11490 .13554 .13300 .12655 .12508 .10762 .10523 .11369 .11254 .11403 .11361

p2

22.420

.000

3.516 3.649

p3

11.700

.001

3.123 3.237

p4

2.713

.102

.600 .611

p5

1.653

.200

1.546 1.564

p6

2.837

.094

2.494 2.551

p7

.369

.544

2.898 2.927

p8

.139

.709

1.515 1.520