SUCTEA Journal. Vol.6.

(2018)
ISSN: 2094-5493

Influences of College Grade Point Average on Librarians’ Licensure Examination Performance

Apler J. Bansiong1 and Elizabeth A. Lascano2

1
College research coordinator and faculty of the Department of Secondary Education, College of Teacher Education, Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines.

2
College secretary and faculty of the Department of Related Programs, College of Teacher Education, Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines.

ABSTRACT

This study analyzed the degree of influence of college grade point average (GPA) on
Librarians’ Licensure Examination (LLE) performance. The case group was the Bachelor of
Library and Information Science (BLIS) graduates in a state-run University in Benguet,
Philippines. The results of the 2015 and 2016 LLEs were analyzed in this study. Document
analysis and correlation were the mean research methods used. Results revealed that the
overall GPAs of the two batches of BLIS graduates were high. These high GPAs, however, did
not translate well with their LLE ratings, which is fair. On the average, overall college GPA did
not contribute much to the graduates’ LLE ratings (r2 = 33%). Also, the influence to the LLE
ratings of all LLE courses combined (r2 = 26%) and LIS core courses (r2 = 39%) are relatively
lower. However, the influence of each individual LLE area when taken individually is higher,
with r2 values ranging from 41% (Information Technology) to 66% (Cataloging and
Classification). Interestingly, GPAs in Cataloging and Classification had consistently exerted a
high influence on the BLIS graduates’ LLE ratings. Meanwhile, their GPA in general education
subjects had a substantial contribution (r2 = 45%) to their LLE ratings. Finally, when GPAs in
the six LLE areas grades were correlated with their specific ratings in these areas in the LLE,
weaker degree of associations were noted.

KEYWORDS: Librarians’ Licensure Examination (LLE), Library and Information Science

Graduates, Grade Point Average (GPA), Predictors, Correlation, Core courses

INTRODUCTION

The success of alumni in licensure examinations is one measure of the quality of training
and instruction that educational institutions provide (Hena, Balllado, Dalucapas, Ubane, &
Basierto, 2014). Licensure performance is an important indicator that will determine whether or
not a private Higher-education institution (HEI) will continue offering a degree program, or
whether budget allocations be increased in government-funded colleges and universities (Ladia
& Nool, 2012; Lascano & Bansiong, 2017). As such, many HEIs analyze their alumni’s
licensure performance (Chan-Rabanal, 2016) in order to appraise curricular offerings and plan
for necessary intervention measures.
One of the licensure examinations that Filipino students must hurdle is the Librarian’s
Licensure Examination (LLE). The LLE covers six major subject areas - Library Organization
and Management Reference (Area 1), Bibliography and User Services (Area 2), Selection and
Acquisition of Library Materials (Area 3), Cataloguing and Classification (Area 4), Indexing

41
and Abstracting (Area 5), and Information Technology (Area 6). To determine the general
ratings, Areas 1, 2, and 4 are each allotted 20%. Areas 3 and 5 are weighted 15%, while Area
6, 10%. To pass the LLE, the examinee must obtain a general weighted average of 75, with no
grade lower than 50% in any of the six subject areas (Ramos et al., 2013)(Sec. 6, RA no. 9246,
2004).
The Board of Librarians (BOL) of the Philippine Professional Regulations Commission
(PRC) report on the declining performance of library and information science (LIS) graduates in
the LLE (Ramos et al., 2013). In this nation where the number of qualified librarians is declining,
this is definitely not good news. The BOL and HEIs offering LIS must explore on the factors
that could significantly influence and predict LLE performance.
In many studies on predictors of licensure performance in various fields, the examinees’
cognitive abilities are almost always considered. The cognitive abilities correlated with
Licensure examination for Teachers (LET) performance include high school and college grade-
point average (GPA), college entrance scores, among others (Antonio, Malvar, Ferrer, &
Pambuena, 2016; Chan-Rabanal, 2016; Ferrer et al., 2015; Hena, et al., 2014; Junio-
Pacheco & Allaga, 2013; Quiambao, Baking, Buenviaje, Nuqui, & Cruz, 2015; Soriano, 2009). In
many of these studies, College GPA is seen as a significant predictor.
Studies analyzing LLE performance is scarce. Very few studies are there to determine
the factors that influence or predict passing performance in the LLE. Ramos et al. (2013)
reported that age, gender, and examinee type (first-timer or repeater) did not significantly
affect the national LLE performance from 2006 - 2010. Meanwhile, when an institutional
performance was considered for a span of 10 years, Maghuyop (2016) found an insignificant
relationship between English grade and LLE performance. However, college GPA was
seen to influence passing performance. Merced and Canang (2014) noted in a regional wide
study that school facility, mental ability of the examinee, and economic stability of the
examinee’s family, are all significant contributors in passing the LLE. Finally, in a small-scale
study involving a college, Lascano and Bansiong (2017) noted that attending review classes can
increase one’s chances of passing the LLE, and that repeating the LLE will not put the
examinee at an advantage. Moreover, the sex of the examinees is an insignificant factor for
passing the LLE.
The authors have yet to see more of published studies that looked into the influence of
the examinees’ cognitive variables, particularly college GPA on LLE performance. Hence, this
study is conceptualized as to add on the limited knowledge on factors affecting LLE
performance.
This study seeks to determine whether college GPA influences the graduates’
performance in the LLE. It specifically aims to determine which particular set of courses would
predict the examinees’ general ratings, and whether the GPA in the tested areas correlate with
the LLE performance in these areas.

METHODOLOGY

This descriptive research study used mainly document analysis and correlation
procedures. The population included 74 graduates of Bachelor of Library and Information
Science (BLIS) of a State University in Benguet, Philippines, who took the 2015 (n=26) and
2016 (n = 48) LLEs. The examinees in these two examinations are BLIS graduates from 2014
to 2016.
Records of the students GPA were obtained from the students’ files kept in the College,
while LLE performance was requested from the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC).

42
 Aside from correlating the examinees’ GPAs in the six areas tested in the LLE, their
academic performances in the non-tested areas were also considered. These mandated
courses not included in the LLE areas fall under general education (GE) and professional
education (ProfEd).
Since the institution follows a grading format following the 1.0 to 5.0 scheme, GPA was
transformed into numerical rating, following the method of grade conversion used by the
Philippine Department of Education (DepEd) in their screening of teacher applicants (DepEd
PH, 2009).
The transformed grades (GPA) and LLE ratings were interpreted, modifying the scale
used by Arenillo & Arenillo, (2009) as follows:
GPA LLE Ratings
Range Interpretation Range Interpretation
91 - and above Very High 91 - and above Very High
86 – 90 High 85 – 90 High
80 – 85 Average 80 – 84 Average
75 – 79 Fair 75 – 79 Fair
Below 75 Poor 70-74 Poor
<70 Very Poor

The basis for the descriptive interpretation (DI) of r values, meanwhile, was adopted
from Ravid (2000), as follows:
r Interpretation
.00 - .20 Negligible to low correlation (N)
.21 - .40 Low correlation (L)
.41 - .60 Moderate correlation (M)
.61 - .80 High/Substantial correlation (H)
.81 - 1.00 Very high correlation (VH)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

College academic performance of the

examinees sampled in this study

The overall grade point averages (GPAs) of the BLIS alumni who took the 2015 and
2016 LLE were high, with means 87.42, and 86.59, respectively (Table 1). For the 2015 LLE
examinees, highest mean GPAs were in the Prof Ed courses, and in all LIS core courses
combined. Meanwhile, their GPA in GE was the lowest. The average GPA in GE courses was
also lowest (average) among the takers of the 2016 examination. Higher GPAs were obtained
in ProfEd, and in Area 6 (Information Technology). In terms of the variability of GPAs, wider
distributions were registered in courses cataloging (Area 4) and Indexing (Area 5).

43
Table 1. Mean and standard deviation of the College GPA of BLIS alumni who took the two LLE
Examinations
2015 LLE (n – 26) 2016 LLE (n – 48) Two Years Combined
Courses
Mean DI* Mean DI Mean DI
General Education (GE) 85.99 High 84.14 Average 85.07 Average
Area 1 – Management 87.94 High 87.26 High 87.60 High
Area 2 – Reference 87.52 High 86.46 High 86.99 High
Area 3 – Selection 87.78 High 86.78 High 87.28 High
Area 4 – Cataloging 87.30 High 85.67 High 86.49 High
Area 5 – Indexing 87.60 High 87.54 High 87.57 High
Area 6 – Info. Tech. 87.77 High 88.44 High 88.11 High
All LLE Core Courses 87.74 High 86.94 High 87.34 High
LIS Core Courses 88.27 High 87.94 High 88.11 High
Prof Ed 88.77 High 88.02 High 88.40 High
Overall GPA 87.42 High 86.59 High 87.01 High
*Descriptive interpretation

2015 LLE
Fair (75-79) Average (80-85) High (86-90) Very High (>=91)
13 18 18 14 19 16 15
15 15 17 17
11 3 7 5 3 8 7
65 6 5 6 4 5 2
0 2 0 0 2 0 1 14 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4

GE Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 LLE Areas LIS Prof Ed Overall GPA

2016 LLE
Fair (75-79) Average (80-85) High (86-90) Very High (>=91)
30 29 22 20 18 25 28 26 31 21 27
20 15 15 16
13 12 7 13 13 10 12 9 9 10 7 7 10 13 14
2 3 0 1 5 2 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 5

GE Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 LLE Areas LIS Prof Ed Overall GPA

Figure 1. Categories of the College GPAs of BLIS alumni who took the 2015 (upper figure) and 2016
(lower figure) examinations.

To find out whether the two groups of examinees differ in the order of how they
performed academically in the different set of courses, Spearman-rho correlation procedure was
employed. Result obtained an r value of 0.76, indicating a strong correlation and a statistically
significant association in how the participants performed academically in the areas. Also, Mann-
Whitney U-test shows that the mean scores in all courses are statistically even.
Considering their academic performances per course, many of the BLIS alumni sampled
in this study have high GPAs (Figure 1). However, in the GE courses, the “fair”, or barely
passing marks, were the dominant GPAs. Consistent with the trend on the average GPAs, most
students have high to very high GPAs in ProfEd, and in all LIS core courses combined.
There were two alumni from the 2015 LLE examinees who had “fair” GPAs. These are in
the areas of cataloging (Area 4) and indexing and abstracting (Area 5).

44
Licensure performance of the
examinees sampled in this study

The overall mean general ratings of the BLIS alumni in the two LLEs were fair, but were
higher than the cut-off score of 75 (Table 2). Also, even if the ratings in the two examinations
were lower than the examinees’ GPA, both ratings were higher than the five-year average
passing rate of the institution in the last five-years, as reported by Lascano and Bansiong
(2017). Such trend on college GPA higher than licensure performance is common in many
studies (Arenillo & Arenillo, 2009; Henna, et al., 2014; Junio-Pacheco & Allaga, 2013).
Expectedly, as students are given chances to retake the courses they failed to pass, their
grades, and hence, their GPA would most likely increase.
Comparing the ratings in the two examinations, the examinees’ performance appears to
be better in the 2016 schedule. Mean ratings in this more recent examination range from “fair”
to “average”, while scores range from “poor” to “fair” in the 2015 LLE. Moreover, the
examinees’ mean scores in the six LLE areas were all “passing” in the 2016 examination, but
only three areas reached the cut-off rating in 2015. The non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test
reveals a significant difference in the average performance of the BLIS alumni participants at
95% confidence level.

Table 2. Mean and standard deviation of Performance of BLIS alumni in the two LLE Examinations
2015 LLE (n – 26) 2016 LLE (n – 48) Two Years Combined
Courses
Mean DI* Mean DI Mean DI
Area 1 – Management 77.69 Fair 79.73 Fair 78.71 Fair
Area 2 – Reference 79.65 Fair 81.60 Average 80.63 Average
Area 3 – Selection 72.54 Poor 82.04 Average 77.29 Fair
Area 4 – Cataloging 78.42 Fair 79.31 Fair 78.87 Fair
Area 5 – Indexing 73.35 Poor 78.67 Fair 76.01 Fair
Area 6 – Info. Tech. 74.96 Poor 75.71 Fair 75.34 Fair
General Rating 78.10 Fair 79.92 Fair 79.01 Fair
*Descriptive interpretation

Spearman-rho correlation was used to determine the association of the ratings in the
LLE components within the two year period. The obtained p-value was 0.97, an indication of a
weak and insignificant association. The examinees in the two LLE were not consistent in terms
of the areas they are weak or strong at. For example, the 2016 takers had the highest ratings
in Area 3 (Selection), but the 2015 cohort scored lowest in this area. Also, the 2015 group
scored highest in area 4, but this area was just the fourth highest among the 2016 takers.
When the examinees are categorized according to their ratings, many of the 2015 takers
fall under the “fair” (range = 75-79) category (Figure 2). Meanwhile, “average” (range = 80 - 84)
and “fair” ratings dominate in the 2016 examinees.
Half of the 2015 takers sampled in this study did not pass in Area 3 (Selection). The
area appears to be difficult, as 31% of the participants had ratings lower than 70%. Among the
2016 group, more than half of the examinees did not reach the 75% cut-off in Area 6 -
Information Technology. This area must be indeed difficult as the highest registered rating is
just 84%. Interestingly, the 2016 group performed very well in Area 3, which is the previous
batch’s weak point.

45
 2015 LLE
Very Poor (<70) Poor (70-74) Fair (75-79) Average (80-84) High (85-90)
16
14 14
12
9 9 10 10
8 8 8
5 5 6 5 5
4 3 4 3 3 3 4
2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
0 0 0 0

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 GR

2016 LLE
Very Poor (<70) Poor (70-74) Fair (75-79) Average (80-84) High (85-90)

23 25 24 24 25
17 15 17 19 20 23
11 11 12 10 13 10
5 8
2 3 1 1 0 0 2 2 3 2 1 2 0 1 1 3

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 GR

Figure 2. Categories of the area ratings of BLIS alumni who took the 2015 (upper figure) and 2016 (lower
figure) examinations

When compared to the five-year trend of LLE performance in the same institution
conducted by these authors, the trend among the 2016 takers is inconsistent. While the first
cohort of examinees ranked highest in information technology, and lowest in selection and
acquisition, the order was reversed in the latest LLE. This result suggest that items vary every
examination, and as new members of the Board of Librarians come and go, new sets of test
items are developed. Such changes have serious impact on the results of predictive validity
studies.

Correlation between college GPA and LLE General ratings

The GPAs in most of the set of courses taken by the participants of this study have
significant associations with their LLE general ratings (Table 3), although the degree of
relationships varied in the two examinations.

Table 3. Correlation and percent of shared variance (r2) among various college GPAs and LLE
General ratings
Courses 2015 LLE (n – 26) 2016 LLE (n – 48) Mean
r DI p r2 r DI p r2 r2
GE Courses 0.70 H p<0.05 0.49 0.56 M p<0.05 0.31 0.45
Area 1 - Management 0.79 H p<0.05 0.62 0.67 H p<0.05 0.45 0.58
Area 2 – Reference 0.83 VH p<0.05 0.69 0.56 M p<0.05 0.31 0.52
Area 3 – Selection 0.80 H p<0.05 0.64 0.57 M p<0.05 0.32 0.51
Area 4 – Cataloging 0.89 VH p<0.05 0.79 0.7 H p<0.05 0.49 0.66
Area 5 – Indexing 0.84 VH p<0.05 0.71 0.59 M p<0.05 0.35 0.55
Area 6 – Info. Tech. 0.67 H p<0.05 0.45 0.52 M p<0.05 0.27 0.41
All LLE Core Courses 0.76 H p<0.05 0.58 0.17 L p>0.05 0.03 0.26
LIS Core Courses 0.26 L p>0.05 0.07 0.66 H p<0.05 0.44 0.39
Prof Ed Courses 0.58 M p<0.05 0.34 0.31 L p<0.05 0.10 0.25
Overall GPA 0.21 L p>0.05 0.04 0.6 H p<0.05 0.36 0.33

46
 Weak and insignificant associations were noted between the GPAs in all LIS courses
and in overall GPA with the 2015 LLE general rating. Considering the 2016 LLE, the GPAs in
ProfEd and in the combined LLE courses, did not significantly correlate with general ratings.
Moreover, it is quite apparent that the GPAs had stronger overall associations with LLE
performance during the 2015 schedule than in the later schedule.
In both examination schedules, the individual GPAs in the six LLE areas registered the
strongest association with LLE outcomes. This is indicative that the alumni’s academic
performance in each of these areas are very good predictors of their future LLE ratings.
Interestingly, the GPAs in cataloging had the highest correlation with LLE ratings in both
schedules. With their respective r values, one can claim that about on the average, 66% of the
variation in the performance on the LLE is associated with changes in academic performance in
the cataloging course. On the other hand, among the six LLE areas tested, Information
Technology GPA contributes the lowest to the examinees’ ratings.
Another noteworthy result is the predictive power of the GPA in the GE courses. Even if
none of the subtests directly tested general education subjects, the examinees’ GPA in these
subjects had substantial influence on their ratings. The mean percent of shared variance in this
variable is 45%. This result is an indication that examinees must have some firm foundation
and good background in general knowledge to pass licensure examinations. The skills and
discipline one has learned from years of studying the languages, math, and the sciences can be
used in future endeavors that demands cognitive work, such as licensure examinations. This
result has some implications on the planned reduction of GE subjects in the new curriculum for
Philippine tertiary education.
The strong predictive validity of GPA in GE on licensure performance has been reported
in many studies. In studies involving the academic predictors of Licensure Examination for
Teachers (LET), general education GPA is a strong predictor. Examples of studies supporting
such claim include those of Arenillo and Arenillo (2009), Chan-Rabanal (2016), Ferrer, et al.,
(2015), and Junio-Pacheco and Allaga (2003).
Other noteworthy result showed that overall GPA poorly correlated with 2015 LLE
general rating, despite high to very high correlations in specific areas. Also, in the 2016 result,
the GPA in the six LLE area courses combined, had weak association with the examination
performance. This study then suggests that it is not enough to look into the predicted value of
overall GPA. It might be also be helpful to venture on the predicted power of some specific set
of courses.

Correlation among the GPAs and ratings in the six LLE areas

Scores in each of the six areas were correlated with the examinees’ undergraduate
GPAs to find out the degree of association between the two variables of similar content. Table
4 shows the values obtained from the correlation procedure.
Among the 2016 takers, there is a positive linear relationship between the examinees’
college GPAs and LLE ratings in the six areas. However, this observation is consistent in just
three of the areas among the 2015 takers. Correlation values range from negligible to moderate
in the result for the 2015 batch.

47
Table 4. Correlation between college GPA and LLE ratings in the six areas

Areas 2015 LLE (n – 26) 2016 LLE (n – 48)

r DI p r DI p
Area 1 - Management 0.18 Negligible p>0.05 0.29 Low p<0.05
Area 2 – Reference 0.34 Low p=0.05 0.55 Moderate p<0.05
Area 3 – Selection 0.44 Moderate p<0.05 0.55 Moderate p<0.05
Area 4 – Cataloging 0.24 Low p>0.05 0.49 Moderate p<0.05
Area 5 – Indexing 0.34 Low p=0.05 0.45 Moderate p<0.05
Area 6 – Info.Tech. 0.25 Low p>0.05 0.37 Low p<0.05

The result indicates that Area-Area association between GPAs and LLE scores are
weaker, compared with area-general ratings associations. The specific areas have higher
predictive power on general ratings than on the same area in the outcome variable.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The overall grade point averages (GPAs) of the two batches of BLIS graduates sampled
in this study were high, but these GPAs did not translate well with their LLE ratings, which were
fair. The graduates performed better in their core subjects (LIS courses) and in ProfEd, than in
the GE. Also, their GPAs in the board courses were high.
The graduates’ average general ratings in the LLE were higher than the cut-off score of
75, but the dominant ratings were fair and moderate. The ratings of the two groups in the six
areas were inconsistent. Selection and acquisition of library resources was the weakest area
for one cohort, but it is the others’ strength.
On the average, the BLIS alumni’s overall GPA, including their combined GPAs in the
LIS core subjects and LLE-tested areas, did not correlate highly with their LLE general ratings.
This indicates that these GPAs’ influences on BLEPT ratings are relatively weaker. However,
the graduates’ GPAs in each of the six board courses had high to very high correlations with
LLE ratings. This is indicative of these courses’ very good predictive abilities. Grades in
cataloging, in particular, had consistently shown a high predictive potential.
Grades in general education courses also correlated highly with LLE ratings, despite the
absence of GE courses in the areas tested. Finally, when grades and LLE ratings in the same
content were correlated, the result was a weaker degree of association.
This paper proves and supports the results of similar studies on the positive linear
relationship between college academic performance and licensure examination ratings. These
strong associations can be translated to good predictive abilities. As such, college students
should prepare for licensure examinations early by doing well in their academics. As early as in
their freshman years, college students must strive to get the best from all of their classes. In
particular, BLIS students must not neglect their general education courses, as their grades in
these courses can increase or decrease their chances of passing the LLE.

REFERENCES

Antonio, J.F., Malvar, R.J., Ferrer, M.B. & E.L. Pambuena. (2016). Licensure Examination for
Teachers Results from 2010 to 2013 of PUP San Pedro’s Bachelor in Secondary
Education Major in Mathematics and English Graduates and its Relationship on their
Academic Performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (4)4, Nov.
2016: 17-22

48
Arenillo, S.A. & M.T. Arenillo. (2009). Pre-service Education and Performances in Teacher
Licensure Examination among Graduates of Mindoro State College of Agriculture and
Technology. JPAIR Multidisciplinary Journal. 2 (January) 2009: 132-140.

Chan-Rabanal, G. (2016). Academic achievement and LET performance of the Bachelor

of elementary education graduates, University of Northern Philippines. International
Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 6(6): 455-461.

DepEd, PH. (2009). Further revisions to the hiring guidelines for Teacher I positions under
DepEd Order No. 4, s. 2007. In Experiential Learning Courses Handbook. Teacher
Education Council. Department of Education. pp. 130-139.

Ferrer, R.C., D.R. Buted & I.M.C. Ferrer (2015). Performance of BSED science graduates in
licensure examination for teachers : Basis for a regression model. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research, 3(5): 1-6.

Hena, R.H., Ballado, R.S , Dalucapas, M.C.C. Ubane, S.C. & R. C. Basierto. Variates of the
Performance of Teacher Education Graduates in the Licensure Examination for
Teachers (LET). International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research and Innovations
ISSN 2348-1226 (online) Vol. 2, Issue 4, pp: (157-163), Month: October - December
2014, Available at: www.researchpublish.com

Junio – Pachejo, S. & W.A. Allaga. Academic Predictors of the Licensure Examination for
Teachers’ Performance of the Rizal Technological University Teacher Education
Graduates. Int. J. Edu. Res. Technol: Volume 4 [4]December 2013: 31-40

Lascano, E. A, & A.J. Bansiong. (2017). Five-year licensure examination performance of

Library and Information Science Graduates. Asian Research Journal on Educational
Studies. 1(1):1-9.

Ladia, M.A.P. and N. R. Nool. 20112. Analysis of the Performance in the Licensure
Examination for Teachers of State Universities and Colleges in Region III. Retrieved
from
https://www.academia.edu/7963956/Performance_in_the_Licensure_Examination_for_T
eachers_of_State_Universities_and_Colleges_in_Region_III on 2/24/17.

Maghuyop, R.B. To pass or Fail: A University of Mindanao Librarian Licensure Performance

Study. Univ. of Min. Intl. Multi. Res. Journ. I (1). www. Uminjournals.org. 90-104.

Merced, J.B.M. & R.M. Canang (2014). Determining the factors affecting the passing
rate in the board examination for librarians using a web-based instrument. PAARJ
Research Journal, 1(1): 1-24. Asian Research Journal of Educational Studies, 2017,
1(1): 1-99 © 2017 AESS Publications.

Quiambao, D.T., Baking, E.G., Buenviaje, L.B., Nuqui, A.V., & R.C. Cruz. (2015). Predictors of
Board Exam Performance of the DHVTSU College of Education Graduates.
Journal of Business & Management Studies, 1(1). 1-4

49
Ramos, M.M., A.M. Ananoria & C.M. Nera (2013). Factors affecting the performance of library
and information professionals in the librarians’ licensure examination (LLE) 2006 -2010.
Part 2. Year of graduation, academic degrees, and educational institutions. Journal of
Philippine Librarianship, 33(1): 37 -46.

Ravid, R. (2000). Practical statistics for educators. 2nd Ed. Oxford: University of America
Press, Inc. 367 pp.

Soriano, H.S. (2009). Factors associated with the performance of USM college of
education graduates in the 2007 licensure examination for teachers. USM R & D,
17(2): 151-159.

Tarun, I.M., B.D. Gerardo and B.T. Tanguilig (2014). Generating licensure examination
performance models using PART and JRIp classifiers: A data mining application in
education. International Journal of Computer and Communication Engineering, 3(3):
202-207.

50