Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Science in Accounting Technology
October 2018
APPROVAL SHEET
University of Perpetual Help System Dalta Page |
Las Piñas Campus i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
and effort to validate our study to ensure its reliability and accuracy.
accomplish
-The Researchers
ABSTRACT
Table of Contents
TITLE PAGE i
APPROVAL SHEET ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
ABSTRACT v
CHAPTER
Introduction 1
Theoretical Framework 6
Conceptual Framework 8
Hypothesis 14
Definition of Terms
19
Synthesis 47
2 METHODOLOGY
Research design 51
Research Instrument 55
Validation of Instrument 59
INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Problem 1 62
Problem 2 65
Problem 3 69
Problem 4 86
Problem 5 94
Problem 6 134
4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS,
Conclusion 166
Recommendation 170
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
LIST OF TABLES
Practices
Practices
of existence
existence
existence
years of existence
years of existence
years of existence
net income
net income
net income
of employees
of employees
employees
number of employees
number of employees
number of employees
to years of existence
to years of existence
net income
to number of employees
of employees
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter 1
Introduction
the business. Fraud happens to fall under the scope of risks that
within the normal working hours, they still have to live up to the
may include fraud. This study will help the coffee shops,
campus and we are familiar with the location, assess the types
time. Aside from the obvious promise of free Wi-Fi, coffee shops
spend leisure time with friends and it has been claimed that the
this case, fraud is one of the risks that falls under the scope of
matter.
2011).
the coffee shops in Las Piñas City, the frequency of their risk
Theoretical Framework
Conceptual Framework
of the study, with the aid of the data obtained from the
Figure 1
Demographic profile
of selected coffee Types of Fraud
shops
Risk Management
Fraud Detection
Fraud Prevention
questions:
3.1 Surveillance
3.2 Monitoring
3.3 IT control
4.2 Supervision
Hypothesis
sampling.
study include:
study that involves their fraud risk management, and they can
Definition of terms
statements.
personal gain.
occurring in an organization.
controls.
and regulations.
access.
analyze and evaluate how likely and severe the risk is, followed
which is far less likely than if one person is responsible for all
owner or management.
Related literature
Risk Management
and managing them before they even affect the business. The
are facing will give them various options on how to deal with
2013).
2018).
businesses that fully intend to comply with the law still have
(Spacey, 2015).
Avoidance is when you have the option not to take on the risk
prepared to cope with the impact of that in the event that it would
this, you’ll have poor results because your colleagues are not
Six, 2017) .
2017).
know what you are doing to mitigate any potential threats and
that you’ve got a sensible alternative plan just in case (Ten Six,
2017).
Fraud
(Hall, 2011).
lasts longer.
Types of Fraud
in their business.
products from the company. Cash theft and service theft are
(Lomer, 2017).
(Lomer, 2017).
2017).
(Lomer, 2017).
Prevention
verification.
2008).
(Spacey, 2016) .
2014).
some gain for the perpetrator. The two means through which
preventive measures.
loses.
businesses.
Synthesis
2018).
occurs but there are three factors that play a part in its
occur.
Chapter 2
METHODOLOGY
analysis.
Research Design
processes that are going on, effects that are evident, or trends
for the success of your project. The methodology that you use
these are the coffee shops particularly located within the vicinity
Figure 2
Figure 3
entities from which the sample might be drawn. For the purpose
Research Instrument
2011).
information. It is collected for the first time since it has not been
primary data.
topic.
2017).
Statistical Treatment
2017)
Chapter 3
DATA
Table 1.1
Years of Existence
(100%) the coffee shops have existed for at least 1-5 years. This
shows that most of the coffee shops in Las Piñas have just
2016, 2016)
Table 1.2
Annual Net Income
this is possibly due to the fact that majority of the coffee shops
may say that you are a very small business and cannot afford to
Table 1.3
Number of Employees
selected coffee shops have just started their businesses and still
hurdles. They can’t employ workers with the same level of skill
Table 2.1
Asset Misappropriation
This could mean that the selected coffee shops may not have
2017)
Table 2.2
Vendor Fraud
in which the orders will be paid for by the company without them
Table 2.3
Accounting Fraud
Table 2.4
Payroll Fraud
the coffee shops are aware of or have policies against. Just like
(Lomer, 2017)
assessment?
Table 3
Descriptives for Fraud Detection Practices
Standard Verbal
Fraud Detection Practice Mean
Deviation Interpretation
CS1:
Highly
Positioning CCTVs within the 3.71 0.900
practiced
premises
CS2:
Viewing or utilizing the use of Highly
3.62 0.810
the CCTV footage on a practiced
scheduled basis
CS3:
Allowing authorized people Moderately
3.48 1.120
to handle and check the practiced
monitoring of the CCTVs
CM1:
Verifying the authenticity of
Highly
the supplier by checking the 3.81 0.402
practiced
important details before
making a purchase
CM2:
Counterchecking if the
inventory received reflects Highly
3.9 0.301
what is stated in the source practiced
documents (receipts, order
forms, etc.)
Highly
CM3: 3.57 0.870
practiced
Conducting unannounced
visits by the management to
check if the standards of
business operations are
being met
CIC1:
Restricting access to
company proprietary
Moderately
information to only those 3.48 0.928
practiced
who have authorized access
and need it in the course of
their job
CIC2:
Securing passwords for
Highly
databases or any important 3.71 0.784
practiced
files or documents saved in
computers
CIC3:
Setting up controls in the
computer system that will
Moderately
alert management if there 3.19 1.123
practiced
are unauthorized attempts of
accessing important
documents
CIC4:
Having a software that alerts
Moderately
management of suspicious 2.57 1.128
practiced
activity on a company
network
CPC1:
Highly
Practicing regular inventory 3.67 0.730
practiced
checks
CPC2:
Consistently
counterchecking for the Highly
3.62 0.740
invoice of the inventory practiced
bought if it matches the
actual inventory count
CPC3:
Disposing of confidential
information properly, by
shredding documents and Moderately
3.1 1.136
completely removing printed practiced
data from electronic devices
before redeploying or
exposing of them
CPC4:
Keeping the cash and
checks in a locked cabinet or Highly
3.76 0.700
safe that can only be practiced
accessed by authorized or
assigned personnel
CAR1:
Assigning a trusted outside
Moderately
contractor to review and 3.33 1.017
practiced
reconcile accounts at regular
intervals
CAR2:
Updating and reviewing the
Highly
financial records (source 3.76 0.539
practiced
documents, journals,
ledgers) on a regular basis
CAR3:
Moderately
Having automated means of 3.24 1.136
practiced
checking the attendance and
CS2:
CS3:
CM1:
an order.
CM2:
CM3:
are being met. Based on the gathered data, the coffee shops
hours to catch them off guard and check what they normally do
CIC1:
so that no one could easily change the data that has been
count, etc.
CIC2:
CIC3:
is that they often set up controls in the computer system that will
but not all of the coffee shops are aware of these kinds of
insufficient resources.
CIC4:
and programs to better secure their information, but not all of the
CPC1:
CPC2:
which was stated in the receipt, orders, etc. This helps identify if
CPC3:
CPC4:
is that they always keep the cash and checks in a locked cabinet
cash, checks or other assets are secure, limited to very few with
CAR1:
accounting records.
CAR2:
a regular basis.
CAR3:
CAR4:
accounts are updated so that they can have a quick view of their
CRA1:
CRA2:
and are prepared for certain scenarios that could take place.
CRA3:
the extent of how effective they are in their practices during the
independent verification?
Table 4
Standard Verbal
Fraud Prevention Practices Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Assigning and distributing the
responsibilities of the staff to
Moderately
avoid unauthorized access to 3.19 1.123
practiced
certain resources, sensitive
information, etc.
Conducting thorough
Highly
background checks on new 3.81 0.512
practiced
employees
Ensuring that all the employees
are oriented and briefed on the Highly
3.9 0.301
company policies, rules and practiced
regulations
Rewarding employees for Moderately
3.33 0.913
ethical behavior practiced
Disciplining the employees who
Highly
breach the company’s code of 3.62 0.669
practiced
ethics
Implementing an ‘open-door
policy’ for the staff to allow them
Highly
to share their opinions or 3.52 0.928
practiced
concerns with regards to
business operations
Requiring staff to immediately
report their injuries or accidents
and requiring medical Highly
3.67 0.796
certificates or proof of practiced
hospitalization or medical
treatment
Cross-checking copies of
source documents to see if it Highly
3.62 0.805
agrees with other proof practiced
documents
Verifying signatures before
Highly
releasing or distributing a said 3.71 0.561
practiced
document
Requesting for authorized
signatures from managers or Moderately
3.48 1.03
supervisors before approving practiced
timesheets and overtime claims
* Legend: 1.00-1.49 = Never (Not practiced), 1.50-2.49 = Rarely (Poorly practiced),
2.50-3.49 = Often (Moderately practiced), 3.50-4.00 = Always (Highly practiced)
DSD:
since most companies have just started and usually only have
DS1:
that they hire to know if they have had any issues in the past that
could affect their performance in the coffee shops, and how they
DS2:
is that they always ensure that all the employees are oriented
DS3:
DS4:
lightly.
DS5:
which makes the staff feel like their inputs are valued.
DS6:
DIV1:
personnel.
DIV2:
DIV3:
Table 5.1
Sig. Decision
Y Variable F Value Interpretation
Value on H01
E
A
R
S Accept
CS 1 .229 .798 Not Significant
H01
O
F
E Accept
X CS 2 .239 .790 Not Significant
H01
I
S
T
E
N Accept
C CS 3 .511 .608 Not Significant
H01
E
Surveillance
than the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus the null
Table 5.2
Differences in the extent of practice for monitoring with
regard to years of existence
Y Sig. Decision on
Variable F Value Interpretation
E Value H01
A
R
S CM 1 .810 .460 Accept H01 Not Significant
O
F
E
X CM 2 .229 .798 Accept H01 Not Significant
I
S
T
E
N
C CM 3 .574 .573 Accept H01 Not Significant
E
Monitoring
the business.
not take into account how long a business has existed because
this mostly involves how the management and staff carries this
Table 5.3
Differences in the extent of practice for IT control with
regard to years of existence
Y Sig. Decision on
Variable F Value Interpretation
E Value H01
A
R
S Not
CIC 1 1.787 .196 Accept H01
Significant
O
F
E Not
CIC 2 .306 .740 Accept H01
X Significant
I
S
T
Not
E CIC 3 .441 .650 Accept H01
Significant
N
C
E Not
CIC 4 .587 .566 Accept H01
Significant
IT Control
the business.
it does not affect the way they handle and secure their digital
Table 5.4
Differences in the extent of practice for physical control
with regard to years of existence
Sig. Decision on
Y Variable F Value Interpretation
Value H01
E
A
R CPC 1 .488 .622 Accept H01 Not Significant
S
O
CPC 2 .631 .544 Accept H01 Not Significant
F
E
X CPC 3 .909 .421 Accept H01 Not Significant
I
S
T
E
N CPC 4 .265 .770 Accept H01 Not Significant
C
E
Physical Control
than the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus the null
does not affect how they handle and secure their tangible assets
2011)
Table 5.5
Differences in the extent of practice for accounting records
with regard to years of existence
Y Sig. Decision on
Variable F Value Interpretation
E Value H01
A
R Not
S CAR 1 1.070 .364 Accept H01
Significant
O
F Not
CAR 2 .456 .641 Accept H01
Significant
E
X
I Not
CAR 3 .573 .574 Accept H01
S Significant
T
E
N Not
C CAR 4 .239 .790 Accept H01
Significant
E
Accounting Records
greater than the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus
even if they the company just started or has been ongoing for
Table 5.6
Differences in the extent of practice for risk assessment
with regard to years of existence
Y Sig. Decision on
Variable F Value Interpretation
E Value H01
A
R
S Not
CRA 1 1.295 .298 Accept H01
Significant
O
F
E
X Not
CRA 2 .922 .416 Accept H01
I Significant
S
T
E
N Not
C CRA 3 .738 .492 Accept H01
Significant
E
Risk Assessment
than the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus the null
the way they assess and mitigate risks or the methods and
Table 5.7
Differences in the extent of practice for surveillance with
regard to annual net income
A Sig. Decision on
Variable F Value Interpretation
N Value H01
N
U
A Not
CS 1 .714 .557 Accept H01
L Significant
N
E Not
T CS 2 1.494 .252 Accept H01
Significant
I
N
C
O Not
CS 3 .845 .488 Accept H01
M Significant
E
Surveillance
the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus the null
any way relate to how much the business earns. (Solon, 2017)
Table 5.8
Differences in the extent of practice for monitoring with
regard to annual net income
Sig. Decision on
A Variable F Value Interpretation
Value H01
N
N
U
A CM 1 .599 .624 Accept H01 Not Significant
L
N
E
T CM 2 1.169 .351 Accept H01 Not Significant
I
N
C
O CM 3 .910 .457 Accept H01 Not Significant
M
E
Monitoring
of the business.
company over the course of a year, it does not affect how the
much the business earns because this mostly involves how the
Table 5.9
Differences in the extent of practice for IT control with
regard to annual net income
Sig. Decision on
A Variable F Value Interpretation
Value H01
N
N
U Not
CIC 1 .149 .929 Accept H01
A Significant
L
Not
N CIC 2 .655 .590 Accept H01
Significant
E
T
Not
CIC 3 2.641 .083 Accept H01
I Significant
N
C
O Not
CIC 4 2.868 .067 Accept H01
M Significant
E
IT Control
the business.
affect the way they handle and secure their digital data found in
them and how the employees comply with the methods, it does
Table 5.10
Differences in the extent of practice for physical control
with regard to annual net income
A F Sig. Decision
Variable Interpretation
N Value Value on H01
N
U Accept
A CPC 1 1.041 .400 Not Significant
H01
L
N Accept
CPC 2 1.686 .208 Not Significant
E H01
T
I
N Accept
CPC 3 .050 .985 Not Significant
C H01
O
M
E Accept
CPC 4 .837 .492 Not Significant
H01
Physical Control
than the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus the null
affect how they handle and secure their tangible assets and
Table 5.11
Differences in the extent of practice for accounting records
with regard to annual net income
A F Sig. Decision
N Variable Value Value on H01 Interpretation
N
U
A
Accept
L CAR 1 1.411 .274 Not Significant
H01
N
E Accept
T CAR 2 .855 .483 Not Significant
H01
I
N Accept
CAR 3 1.616 .223 Not Significant
C H01
O
M Accept
E CAR 4 1.363 .288 Not Significant
H01
Accounting Records
greater than the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus
Table 5.12
Differences in the extent of practice for risk assessment
with regard to annual net income
A Sig. Decision
N Variable F Value Interpretation
Value on H01
N
U
A
L CRA 1 .465 .710 Accept H01 Not Significant
N
E
T
CRA 2 1.125 .367 Accept H01 Not Significant
I
N
C
O
M CRA 3 .890 .466 Accept H01 Not Significant
E
Risk Assessment
than the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus the null
affect the way they assess and mitigate risks or the methods and
Table 5.13
Differences in the extent of practice for surveillance with
regard to number of employees
F Sig. Decision
Variable Interpretation
N Value Value on H01
U
M
B Accept
E CS 1 .462 .712 Not Significant
H01
R
O
F
E Accept
M CS 2 .594 .628 Not Significant
H01
P
L
O
Y
E
Accept
E CS 3 .336 .800 Not Significant
H01
S
Surveillance
the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus the null
of employees.
(Solon, 2017)
Table 5.14
Differences in the extent of practice for monitoring with
regard to number of employees
Sig. Decision
N Variable F Value Interpretation
Value on H01
U
M
B
E Accept
R CM 1 2.176 .128 Not Significant
H01
O
F
E
Reject
M CM 2 4.571 .025 Significant
H01
P
L
O
Y
E Accept
E CM 3 .471 .706 Not Significant
H01
S
Monitoring
the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus the null
value .025 that is less than the 0.05 level of significance set by
the study, thus the null hypothesis is rejected. This means that
Table 5.15
Differences in the extent of practice for IT control with
regard to number of employees
F Sig. Decision on
Variable Interpretation
N Value Value H01
U
M Not
B CIC 1 .201 .894 Accept H01
Significant
E
R
O Not
CIC 2 .600 .624 Accept H01
F Significant
E
M Not
P CIC 3 .522 .673 Accept H01
Significant
L
O
Y
E Not
E CIC 4 .640 .599 Accept H01
Significant
S
IT Controls
business, it does not affect the way they handle and secure their
with the methods, it does not need to take into consideration how
Table 5.16
Sig. Decision on
Variable F Value Interpretation
N Value H01
U
M
B CPC 1 .093 .963 Accept H01 Not Significant
E
R
O
F CPC 2 .248 .862 Accept H01 Not Significant
E
M
P
L CPC 3 .579 .637 Accept H01 Not Significant
O
Y
E
E CPC 4 .224 .878 Accept H01 Not Significant
S
Physical Controls
greater than the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus
business, it does not affect how they handle and secure their
many they are they go through the same training and orientation.
Table 5.17
Differences in the extent of practice for accounting records
Sig. Decision
Variable F Value Interpretation
N Value on H01
U
M
B CAR 1 .423 .739 Accept H01 Not Significant
E
R
O
CAR 2 5.161 .017 Reject H01 Significant
F
E
M
P
L CAR 3 .981 .425 Accept H01 Not Significant
O
Y
E
E CAR 4 .959 .434 Accept H01 Not Significant
S
Accounting Records
study, thus the null hypothesis is accepted. Except for one fraud
employees.
documents, since they also have other tasks that require their
2018)
Table 5.18
Differences in the extent of practice for risk assessment
with regard to number of employees
N Sig. Decision
U Variable F Value Interpretation
Value on H01
M
B
E
R
Accept
CRA 1 .454 .718 Not Significant
H01
O
F
E
M Accept
CRA 2 .759 .532 Not Significant
P H01
L
O
Y
E
Accept
E CRA 3 .265 .850 Not Significant
H01
S
Risk Assessment
than the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus the null
number of employees.
affect the way they assess and mitigate risks or the methods and
Table 6.1
Differences in the extent of practice for segregation of
duties with regard to years of existence
Sig. Decision
Variable F Value Interpretation
Y Value on H02
E
A
R
S
O
F
E
X DSD .441 .650 Accept H02 Not Significant
I
S
T
E
N
C
E
Segregation of Duties
greater than the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus
company within a year, it does not affect the way they distribute
their employees they are better placed to know who has the
Table 6.2
Differences in the extent of practice for supervision of
duties with regard to years of existence
Sig. Decision on
Y Variable F Value Value H02
Interpretation
E
A Not
DS1 .484 .624 Accept H02
R Significant
S Not
DS2 .229 .798 Accept H02
Significant
O
F Not
DS3 1.429 .265 Accept H02
Significant
E Not
DS4 1.222 .318 Accept H02
X Significant
I
S Not
DS5 1.613 .227 Accept H02
T Significant
E
N
C Not
DS6 .408 .671 Accept H02
E Significant
Supervision
the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus the null
employees or the steps taken into ensuring how well they handle
(Siayor, 2010)
Table 6.3
Differences in the extent of practice for independent
verification with regard to years of existence
Y
E Sig. Decision
Variable F Value Interpretation
A Value on H02
R
S
O
F DIV1 .527 .599 Accept H02 Not Significant
E
X
I
S DIV2 .383 .688 Accept H02 Not Significant
T
E
N
C
E
DIV3 .614 .552 Accept H02 Not Significant
Independent Verification
business.
people carrying out this task and not the number of years a
Table 6.4
Differences in the extent of practice for segregation of
duties with regard to annual net income
A Sig. Decision
Variable F Value Interpretation
N Value on H02
N
U
A
L
N
E
T Not
DSD .780 .521 Accept H02
Significant
I
N
C
O
M
E
Segregation of Duties
company within a year, it does not affect the way they distribute
their employees they are better placed to know who has the
Table 6.5
Differences in the extent of practice for supervision with
regard to annual net income
A F Sig. Decision
Variable Interpretation
N Value Value on H02
N
U
Accept
A DS1 .300 .825 Not Significant
H02
L
Accept
N DS2 .783 .519 Not Significant
H02
E
Accept
T DS3 .584 .633 Not Significant
H02
I Accept
DS4 .757 .534 Not Significant
N H02
C Accept
DS5 .201 .894 Not Significant
O H02
M
Accept
E DS6 .366 .778 Not Significant
H02
Supervision
the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus the null
Table 6.6
Differences in the extent of practice for independent
verification with regard to annual net income
Sig. Decision
Variable F Value Interpretation
A Value on H02
N
N
U Not
DIV1 .502 .686 Accept H02
A Significant
L
N
E Not
T DIV2 .886 .468 Accept H02
Significant
I
N
C
O Not
M DIV3 1.058 .393 Accept H02
Significant
E
Independent Verification
carrying out this task and not how much a company earns
Table 6.7
Differences in the extent of practice for segregation of
duties with regard to number of employees
Sig. Decision
Variable F Value Interpretation
N Value on H02
U
M
B
E
R
O
F
E Accept
DSD 1.238 .327 Not Significant
M H02
P
L
O
Y
E
E
S
Segregation of Duties
higher duties. It does not matter if the company only has few
Table 6.8
Differences in the extent of practice for supervision with
regard to number of employees
Sig. Decision
N Variable F Value Interpretation
Value on H02
U
M
Accept
B DS1 .256 .856 Not Significant
H02
E
R
Accept
DS2 .399 .755 Not Significant
H02
O
F
Accept
DS3 .874 .474 Not Significant
H02
E
M
P Accept
DS4 .637 .601 Not Significant
L H02
O
Y Accept
DS5 1.183 .346 Not Significant
E H02
E
S Accept
DS6 .549 .655 Not Significant
H02
Supervision
the 0.05 level of significance set by the study, thus the null
of the employees.
steps taken into ensuring how well they handle their staff. They
2010)
Table 6.9
Differences in the extent of practice for independent
verification with regard to number of employees
N Sig. Decision on
Variable F Value Interpretation
U Value H02
M
B
E Not
DIV1 2.642 .083 Accept H02
R Significant
O
F Not
DIV2 1.057 .393 Accept H02
Significant
E
M
P
L
O
Y DIV3 3.925 .027 Reject H02 Significant
E
E
S
Independent Verification
values less than the 0.05 level of significance set by the study,
Due to the fact that majority of the coffee shops only have at
(Kuman, 2016)
CHAPTER 4
Summary of Findings
1. Demographic Profile
total respondents.
respondents.
respondents.
total respondents.
total respondents.
2. Type of Fraud
respondents.
respondents.
total respondents.
total respondents.
respondents.
total respondents.
respondents.
total respondents.
respondents.
respondents.
respondents.
3.1. Surveillance
Highly Practiced.
Practiced.
3.2 Monitoring
Practiced.
3.3 IT Controls
ModeratelyPracticed.
Moderately Practiced.
Moderately Practiced.
Practiced.
Moderately Practiced.
Practiced.
Moderately Practiced.
Practiced.
Highly Practiced.
Practiced.
4.2 Supervision
Moderately Practiced.
Highly Practiced.
Highly Practiced.
Moderately Practiced.
Conclusion
experienced:
practiced.
practiced.
practiced.
moderately practiced.
practiced.
employees.
Recommendation
resources.
REFERENCES:
Gadade, S. T., & Wagh, A. D. (2013). Evaluating Budgeting
and Budgetary Control Process in Colleges.
International Monthly Refereed Journal of
Research In Management & Technology, 2.
y_of_young_ProfeSSionalS
An, T. L., Sheng, T. H., Bin, Y. S., & Ying, ,. T. (2013). Factors
That Influence Employee Job Satisfaction in Food
Industry at Kampar, Perak. 2-3.
records
Babbie, E. R. (2010). The Practice of Social Research (12th
Edition). Cengage.
https://kaufmanrossin.com/blog/mitigating-risk-
fraud-prevention-detection/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC410
9328/
(Part%201).pdf
Guest Post. (2018, February 15). The Importance of Debt
Management. Retrieved from Economics Wire:
https://www.economicswire.net/the-importance-of-
debt-management.html
Credit Karma:
https://www.creditkarma.com/advice/i/negotiate-
debt-credit-card-company/
http://dissertation-help-
uk.blogspot.com/2011/12/importance-of-data-
analysis-in-research.html
ONTROLS_IN_ORGANIZATIONS
Kothari, C. (2005). Research Methodology: Methods and
Techniques. New Delhi: New Age International (P)
Ltd.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140616220907-
54522881-benefits-of-delegation
https://www.technologynetworks.com/informatics/ar
ticles/one-way-vs-two-way-anova-definition-
differences-assumptions-and-hypotheses-306553
satisfaction/
https://managementhelp.org/organizations/types.ht
m
6(6), 327-340.
Narayanan-3
philippines/
https://www.thebalance.com/does-income-affect-
credit-315386
experience/service-profit-chain-works-care-
01639838
Business. Chron:
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/employeremploye
e-relationship-16737.html
df
http://www.pasei.com/food-food-allowance/
cards/resources/what-are-the-advantages-of-credit-
cards/
APPENDICES
“APPENDIX A”
“APPENDIX B”
“APPENDIX C”
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
“APPENDIX D”
LETTER TO RESPONDENTS
“APPENDIX E”
ANOVA by A2
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
CS1 Between Groups .403 2 .202 .229 .798
Within Groups 15.882 18 .882
Total 16.286 20
CS2 Between Groups .335 2 .167 .239 .790
Within Groups 12.618 18 .701
Total 12.952 20
CS3 Between Groups 1.356 2 .678 .511 .608
Within Groups 23.882 18 1.327
Total 25.238 20
CM1 Between Groups .268 2 .134 .810 .460
Within Groups 2.971 18 .165
Total 3.238 20
CM2 Between Groups .045 2 .022 .229 .798
Within Groups 1.765 18 .098
Total 1.810 20
CM3 Between Groups .908 2 .454 .574 .573
Within Groups 14.235 18 .791
Total 15.143 20
CIC1 Between Groups 2.856 2 1.428 1.787 .196
Within Groups 14.382 18 .799
Total 17.238 20
CIC2 Between Groups .403 2 .202 .306 .740
Within Groups 11.882 18 .660
Total 12.286 20
CIC3 Between Groups 1.179 2 .590 .441 .650
Within Groups 24.059 18 1.337
Total 25.238 20
CIC4 Between Groups 1.908 2 .954 .587 .566
Within Groups 29.235 18 1.624
Total 31.143 20
CPC1 Between Groups .549 2 .275 .488 .622
Within Groups 10.118 18 .562
Total 10.667 20
CPC2 Between Groups .717 2 .359 .631 .544
Within Groups 10.235 18 .569
Total 10.952 20
CPC3 Between Groups 2.368 2 1.184 .909 .421
Within Groups 23.441 18 1.302
Total 25.810 20
CPC4 Between Groups .280 2 .140 .265 .770
Within Groups 9.529 18 .529
Total 9.810 20
CAR1 Between Groups 2.196 2 1.098 1.070 .364
Within Groups 18.471 18 1.026
Total 20.667 20
CAR2 Between Groups .280 2 .140 .456 .641
Total 12.952 20
CRA1 Between Groups 2.408 2 1.204 1.295 .298
Within Groups 16.735 18 .930
Total 19.143 20
CRA2 Between Groups 2.256 2 1.128 .922 .416
Within Groups 22.029 18 1.224
Total 24.286 20
CRA3 Between Groups 1.003 2 .501 .738 .492
Within Groups 12.235 18 .680
Total 13.238 20
ANOVA by A2
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
CM2 Between Groups .045 2 .022 .229 .798
Within Groups 1.765 18 .098
Total 1.810 20
CAR2 Between Groups .280 2 .140 .456 .641
Within Groups 5.529 18 .307
Total 5.810 20
POSTHOC
ANOVA by A3
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
CS1 Between Groups 1.228 3 .409 .462 .712
Within Groups 15.058 17 .886
Total 16.286 20
CS2 Between Groups 1.228 3 .409 .594 .628
Within Groups 11.724 17 .690
Total 12.952 20
CS3 Between Groups 1.411 3 .470 .336 .800
Within Groups 23.827 17 1.402
Total 25.238 20
CM1 Between Groups .898 3 .299 2.176 .128
Within Groups 2.340 17 .138
Total 3.238 20
CM2 Between Groups .810 3 .270 4.587 .016
Within Groups 1.000 17 .059
Total 1.810 20
CM3 Between Groups 1.162 3 .387 .471 .706
Within Groups 13.981 17 .822
Total 15.143 20
CIC1 Between Groups .591 3 .197 .201 .894
Within Groups 16.647 17 .979
Total 17.238 20
CIC2 Between Groups 1.177 3 .392 .600 .624
Within Groups 11.109 17 .653
Total 12.286 20
CIC3 Between Groups 2.129 3 .710 .522 .673
F Decision
Variable Sig. Value Interpretation
Value on Ho
CS 1 .462 .712 Accept Ho Not Significant
CS 2 .594 .628 Accept Ho Not Significant
CS 3 .336 .800 Accept Ho Not Significant
CM 1 2.176 .128 Accept Ho Not Significant
CM 2 4.587 .016 Reject Ho Significant
CM 3 .471 .706 Accept Ho Not Significant
CIC 1 .201 .894 Accept Ho Not Significant
CIC 2 .600 .624 Accept Ho Not Significant
CIC 3 .522 .673 Accept Ho Not Significant
CIC 4 .640 .599 Accept Ho Not Significant
CPC 1 .093 .963 Accept Ho Not Significant
CPC 2 .248 .862 Accept Ho Not Significant
CPC 3 .579 .637 Accept Ho Not Significant
CPC 4 .224 .878 Accept Ho Not Significant
ANOVA by A3
Sig. Decision on
Variable F Value Interpretation
Value Ho
CS 1 .452 .644 Accept Ho Not Significant
CS 2 .575 .573 Accept Ho Not Significant
CS 3 .356 .705 Accept Ho Not Significant
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
CM2 Between Groups .610 2 .305 4.571 .025
Within Groups 1.200 18 .067
Total 1.810 20
CAR2 Between Groups 2.117 2 1.059 5.161 .017
Within Groups 3.692 18 .205
Total 5.810 20
“APPENDIX F”
CERTIFICATE OF STATISTICIAN
“APPENDIX G”
CERTIFICATE OF TURNITIN
“APPENDIX H”
CERTIFICATE OF GRAMMARIAN
CURRICULUM
VITAE