31

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the procedures that were used during the conduct of the study. This includes the research methods used, respondents of the study, sampling techniques, instruments used, validation of instruments, data gathering and statistical treatment of data.

Research Methods Used The researchers used the descriptive type of research to gather the information about the receivable management of CEVA Animal Health Phils. Inc. as perceived by the management personnel. This method enables the researchers to evaluate, analyze, summarize and interpret the gathered information from the management personnel of CEVA Animal Health Phils., Inc. Descriptive research is used to obtain information concerning the current status of the phenomena to describe what exist with respect to variables or conditions in the situation. The methods involved range from the survey which describes the status quo, the correlation study which investigates the relationship between the variables, to developmental studies which seek to determine the changes over time.

32 (http:/www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged5980a/newpage110.htm.ret rieved September 5, 2013) Descriptive method comprises all the data collected useful in adjusting or meeting the present event. Survey study was used to measure the existing event without inquiring into why it exists. In this study, the method included determined information about variables rather than the individuals. As used in this research, collected and treated, are data on profile of the management personnel such as age, gender, civil status, position in the company, and number of years in the present position.

Respondents of the Study The respondents of the study were the 33 management personnel of CEVA Animal Health Phils., Inc. who are concerned in transactions involving receivable management. The respondents occupied positions including

managers, assistant managers, and other management personnel who were knowledgeable regarding the receivable management and control of the CEVA Animal Health Phils., Inc.

Instrument Used In this study, the instrument used for gathering the important data was the questionnaires for the management personnel of CEVA. It was the major instrument of the research. The questionnaires were formulated by the researchers based on the statement of the problem in Chapter 1. It was referred

33 to an undergraduate unpublished thesis entitled Cash and Receivable Management of Selected Branch of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation by Parnada, Julie Anne N., et. al. The questionnaires were used to accommodate sufficient and relevant information required from the respondents. The questionnaires was divided into four parts: Part 1 was the information sheet about the respondents personal data such as age, gender, civil status, position in the company, and the number of years in the company. Part 2 contained information on receivable management including credit policies billing procedure, collection procedure, and receivable control. Part 3 included information about encountered problems of the company. Likert scale was used to know the answers of the respondents considering five options with the corresponding scale. The options are (SA) Strongly Agree, (A) Agree, (U) Undecided, (D) Disagree, and (SD) Strongly Disagree. Respondents were requested to check the space provided for each option.

Validation of the Instrument Validity refers to the degree in which our test or other measuring device is truly measuring what it intends to measure. The researchers created the questionnaires for the management personnel of CEVA Animal Health Phils., Inc. to determine the perception of the employee on the receivable management of the company. Several questions were raised to be part of the instrument. These questions were obtained based on the problems stated in Chapter 1 and on the accumulated knowledge of the researchers. For the validity of the instrument

34 used the researchers consulted their thesis adviser Mrs. Flordeliza S. Yboa. She mentioned irregularities in the instrument even if the researchers developed questions that could meet the objectives of the study.A major revision of the questionnaire was followed. The thesis adviser suggested additional questions to be included in the instrument and to reword the questions. The questions raised from the start remained to be part of the questionnaire. After having revisions, the questionnaire was completed, examined, checked and corrected by the thesis adviser and validated by Prof. Ligaya Montalbo Espino. The researchers made an item analysis to improve the questionnaires. This was used to eliminate misleading items. The researchers had the questionnaires answered by 33 management personnel of CEVA. After retrieving the accomplished questionnaires, the responses were tallied and then tests of validity and reliability were applied. They validity index formula was used by the researchers to test the validity of the instrument. Questions that resulted to a validity index of highly discriminating were retained and those that resulted to a moderately discriminating were rephrased. On the other hand, the questions that resulted to a validity index that was not discriminating were discarded. Based on difficulty index, a question was not applicable if it is easy, acceptable if moderately difficult and revised if difficult. The difficulty index formula is:

35 Where: = percentage of stongly agree = percentage of strongly disagree The validity index formula is:

The following ranges of values are used in determining the validity index VI .75 - item is Highly Discriminating .26 DI .75 - item is Moderately Discriminating VI .26 - item is Not Discriminating The following ranges of values are used in determining the difficulty index DI .75 - item is easy .26 DI .75 - item is moderately difficult DI .26 - item is difficult Test of validity was applied to CEVA Animal Health Phils. Most of the questions that resulted to highly discriminating index and were retained. Validated questionnaires have been pre-tested for reliability in evaluating the reliability of the questionnaires Pearson r Correlation was used

36 The following formula was used to obtain the value of the Pearson r Correlation of coefficient from the raw data.

A correction was needed to determine the reliability of the entire test since the Pearson r procedure was based upon a correlation between scores obtained on the tests. The researchers applied the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula.

Where: r = The Pearson r coefficient rsb = Spearman Brown coefficient The Pearson r coefficient (r) was 83.35% while the reliability of the whole test (rsb) was 90.92%. Since the reliability of the whole test obtained was very high, the whole test is reliable. The researchers also seek an experts opinion. The questionnaire was presented to Ms. Joyce D. Melegrito, credit and collection officer of CEVA Animal Health Phils., Inc., certain items were noted.

37 Data Gathering Procedures The researchers prepared and formulated questionnaires which were employed in this study to collect important information. The questionnaires were distributed among employees of CEVA Animal Health Phils. Inc., and it was conducted within the company located at 1605 East Tower Phil. Stock Exchange OrtigasCenter Pasig CPO , Pasig City. The questionnaire were personally brought and left to the office and for retrieval. The respondents were given four to six days to complete the questionnaires. The responses were tallied and tabulated according to the frequency of items checked by the respondents. Results were interpreted using various statistical tools after the data tabulation.

Statistical Treatment of Data The data gathered in this study were organized and classified based from the research design and the problems formulated. The data were coded, tallied and tabulated to facilitate the presentation and interpretation of results using the following: 1. Frequency and Percentage The percentage and frequency distributions were used to classify the respondents according to personal background variables such as age, gender, civil status, highest educational attainment, and number of years in the company. The formula is given below: Percentage (%) = (f/n) x 100

38 Where: f = frequency n = number of cases or total sample

2. Ranking This is a descriptive measure to describe numerical data in addition to percentage. Ranking was used in the study for comparative purpose and for sharing the importance of items analyzed. 3. Weighted Mean Weighted mean was used to determine the respondents perception with regards to the various parts of the survey questionnaire. The respondents rate this by putting a check mark under any of the following column: Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. The formula for the weighted mean is: x = fx / n Where: x = weighted mean f = frequency n = total number of respondents

39 Scale Value 5 4 3 2 1 Range 4.51 5.00 3.51 4.50 2.51 3.50 1.51 2.50 1.00 1.50 Verbal Interpretation Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strong Disagree

4. T-test The t-test is a statistical test that is used to determine if there is a significant difference between the mean or average scores of two groups. The t-test essentially does two things: First, it determines if the means are sufficiently different from each other to say that they belong to two distinct groups. This is done by getting the average score of each group, and then getting the difference of the two means. Second, the T-Test also takes into account the variability in scores of the two groups. This is called the standard error, which simply answers the question: "how far is each score from the group mean?" If scores do not deviate far from the mean, the standard error will be low, which is what you want. But if there is a lot of fluctuation in the scores, you will get a high standard error.

40 The formula for uncorrelated T-test:

where:

x = mean of sample 1 x = mean of sample 2

= number of subject in sample 1 = number of subject in sample 2

= variance of sample 1 =

= variance of sample 2 =

5. One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) One-way analysis of variance (abbreviated one-way ANOVA) is a technique used to compare means of two or more samples (using the F distribution). This technique can be used for numerical data. There are only two means to compare. The t-test and the F-test are equivalent; the relation between and t is given by F = t2. In this study, the ANOVA is used to determine difference on the assessment made by respondents group.

41 ANOVA is a simple analysis of variance which is used to test the significance of the difference between two or more means obtain from independent samples. Formulas used are: 4.1 Sum of Squares for Variability (SSt)

4.2 Sum of squares between Group Variability (SSb)

4.3 Sum of Squares for within Group Variability (SSw) SSw = SSt SSb 4.4 Degree of Freedom between Groups (dfb) dfb= c 1

4.5 Degree of Freedom within groups (dfw) dfw = N c

42 4.6 Mean Squares between Groups (MSb) MSb =

4.7 Mean Squares within Groups (MSw) MSw =

4.8 F-ratio (Fc) Fc =

Where: X = observed value n = number of samples in a particular category I = individual observation of cell A = the given factor or category N = total samples c = number of categories After finding the value of F-ration, determine the significance of F by referring to the table of F-ratio. If the variations cannot be attributed to sampling error, the researchers will reject the null hypothesis (H0) and will accept the alternative hypothesis (HA) that the treatments have an effect. In this study, the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) is used.

43 Decision Rule: Computed F-value > Tabular F- value; reject H0 Computer F- value < Tabular F- value; accept H0

6. Likert Scale Likert scale is the method of ascribing quantitative value to qualitative date, to make it amenable to statistical analysis. Used mainly in training course evaluation and market surveys, Likert scales usually have five potential choices (strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, strongly disagree) but sometimes go up to ten or more. A numerical value is assigned to each potential choice and mean figure for all the response is computed at the end of the evaluation or survey. The final average score represents overall level of accomplishment or attitude toward the subject matter.

Scale Value 5 4 3 2 1

Range 4.51 5.00 3.51 4.50 2.51 3.50 1.51 2.50 1.00 1.50

Verbal Interpretation Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strong Disagree

44 The Lkert scale was used to specify the respondents level of agreement with regards to the efficiency of collection of CEVA Animal Health Phils., Inc., based on the given factors. The Likert Scale with the following

description/interpretation was used.