DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

1. What is the respondents' profile when grouped according to civil status, sex , position,
adult age group and cholesterol level?

Table 1. Participants’ Distribution in Terms of Civil Status

Civil Status Frequency Percentage(%)

Single 46 32.9
Married 54 38.6
Separated 40 28.6
Total 140 100
Table 1 presents the participants’ distribution in terms of civil status. Most or 38.6 percent of the participants are
married, followed closely by single participants. The least of them are separated with their spouses.

Table 2. Participants’ Distribution in Terms of Gender

Sex Frequency Percentage(%)

male 98 70
female 42 30
Total 140 100
Table 2 presents the participants’ distribution in terms of gender. As shown in the table, majority or 70% of the
participants are male.

Table 3. Participants’ Distribution in Terms of Position

Position Frequency Percentage (%)

administrator 28 20
faculty 40 28.6
staff 52 37.1
maintenance 20 14.3
Total 140 100
Table3 presents the participants’ distribution in terms of position. As shown in the table, most or 37.1% of the
participants are male.
Table 4. Participants’ Distribution in Terms of Adult Age Group

Adult Age Group Frequency Percentage (%)

young adult 75 53.6
middle adult 18 12.9
old adult 47 33.6
Total 140 100
Table 4 presents the participants’ distribution in terms of adult age group. As shown in the table, majority or 53.6 %
of the participants are young adult.

Table 5. Participants’ Distribution in Terms of Cholesterol Count After Treatment

Cholesterol Level After Frequency Percent

Desirable 68 48.6
Borderline 72 51.4
Total 140 100
Table 5 presents the participants’ distribution in terms of cholesterol count after treatment. As shown in the table,
majority or 51.4 % of the participants have cholesterol count falling within borderline level. This further implies that
the cholesterol count of the participants is above normal but not quite in the "high" range.

2. What are descriptive characteristics of the respondents’ profile in terms of

the following:
Table 6. Descriptive Characteristics of the Respondents’ Age, Monthly Salary, Cholesterol Count Before and After
Treatment

N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
Age 140 29 21 50 35.21 6.490 42.126 .138 .205 -.595 .407

monthly salary 140 23000 9000 32000 16176.86 4809.547 23131739.692 1.058 .205 1.307 .407

cholesterol count before 140 74 170 244 203.73 21.263 452.113 .324 .205 -1.082 .407

cholesterol count after 140 75 165 240 197.56 20.363 414.666 .388 .205 -.871 .407

Table 7 presents the descriptive characteristics of the respondents’ age, monthly salary, cholesterol count before
and after treatment.
For their age profile, the eldest among them is 50 years of age while the youngest is 21 years of age. The age gap
between the eldest and youngest is 21 years. The mean age is 35.21 indicating that most of them belong to the
middle adult age group. The average age gap among their ages is 6 . The participants’ ages are slightly skewed to
the right and are platykurtic in shape.
For monthly salary, the highest earning from among the group is Php 32,000 while the lowest earning is Php 9,000.
The gap between the recorded highest and lowest earning is Php 23,000. The average gap in terms of their monthly
earnings is P 4,809.55. The participants’ salary is skewed to the right and leptokurtic.
For the participants cholesterol count before treatment, the maximum registered cholesterol count among them is
203.73 while the least recorded is 170 of which reveal a difference of 74. The average gap in terms of their
cholesterol count before the treatment is 21.26. The participants’ cholesterol count before treatment is slightly
skewed to the right and platykurtic.
For the participants cholesterol count after treatment, the maximum registered cholesterol count among them is
197.56 while the least recorded is 165 of which reveal a difference of 75. The average gap in terms of their
cholesterol count after the treatment is 20.36. The participants’ cholesterol count after treatment is slightly skewed
to the right and platykurtic.
INFERENTIAL STATISTICS
3.Is there a significant difference on the cholesterol count of male and
female respondents before taking the mineral supplement ?
Step 1:
Ho: There is no significant difference on the cholesterol count of male and
female respondents before taking the mineral supplement.
Ha: There is significant difference on the cholesterol count of male and female
respondents before taking the mineral supplement.
Step 2: α=0.01
Step 3: t-test for independent samples
Step 4: Decision:
Table 8. t-Test Results on the significant difference on the cholesterol count between male and female
respondents before taking the mineral supplement
Sex N Mean Std. Deviation T pv Decision
male 98 203.88 21.034 0.126 0.9 Accept HO
female 42 203.38 22.043
Step 5: Interpretation
Table 8 presents the t-test results on the significant difference on the cholesterol count between
male and female respondents before taking the mineral supplement.
As shown in the table, the probability value is 0.9 which is greater than 0.01 level of significance,
hence the null hypothesis is accepted. This means that there is no significant difference on the cholesterol
count of male and female respondents before taking the mineral supplement. This implies that regardless
of gender, the participants have the cholesterol count before taking the mineral supplement. RRL

4. Is there a significant difference on the cholesterol count of the respondents before

and after taking the mineral supplement?

Step 1:
Ho: There is no significant difference on the cholesterol count of the respondents before
and after taking the mineral supplement.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the cholesterol count of the respondents before and
after taking the mineral supplement.
Step 2: α=0.01
Step 3: t-test for dependent samples/paired t-test
Step 4: Decision
Table 9. t-Test Results on the Significant Difference on the Cholesterol Count of the Respondents Before
and After Taking the Mineral Supplement
Std.
Data Mean N Deviation t PV Decision
cholesterol count before 203.73 140 21.263 9.878 0.000 Reject Ho
cholesterol count after 197.56 140 20.363

Step 5: Interpretation
Table 9 presents the t-test results on the significant difference on the cholesterol
count of the respondents before and after taking the mineral supplement.
As shown in the table, the probability value is 0 which is less than 0.01 level of
significance, hence the null hypothesis is rejected. This means that there is a significant
difference on the cholesterol count of the respondents before and after taking the mineral
supplement. Based on the means, there is a significant decrease in the cholesterol count of
the participants after medication. This further means that the medication is effective in
reducing cholesterol count. RRL

5. Is there a significant difference on the cholesterol count of the

participants after taking the mineral supplement when grouped
according to civil status, and position ?
Step 1:
Ho: There are no significant differences on the cholesterol count of the
participants after taking the mineral supplement when grouped according to
civil status, and position.
Ha: There are significant differences on the cholesterol count of the
participants after taking the mineral supplement when grouped according to
civil status, and position .
Step 2: α=0.05
Step 3: F-test (Analysis of Variance-ANOVA)
Step 4: Decision
Table 10. F-Test Results On The Significant Differences On The Cholesterol Count Of The Participants After
Taking The Mineral Supplement When Grouped According To Civil Status, And Position
Std.
Civil Status GROUP N Mean Deviation F PV Decision
single 46 198.7 22.094 0.225 0.798 Accept HO
married 54 196.11 20.968
separated 40 198.2 17.674
Total 140 197.56 20.363
Position administrator 28 220.21 14.006 21.834 0.000 Reject Ho
faculty 40 189.2 17.287
staff 52 194.69 15.926
maintenance 20 190 21.784
Total 140 197.56 20.363
POStHOc
administrat 31.014
or faculty * 4.167 0
staff 25.522 3.964 0
 *
maintenan 30.214
ce * 4.952 0

Step 5: Interpretation
Table 10 presents the results on the significant differences on the cholesterol count of the
participants after taking the mineral supplement when grouped according to civil status, and position.
As shown in the table, the probability value is 0.798 which is greater than 0.05 level of significance,
hence the null hypothesis is accepted. This means that there is no significant difference on the
cholesterol count of the participants after taking the mineral supplement when grouped according to civil
status. This implies that the participants, regardless of being single, married, and separated, have the
same cholesterol count results after taking the mineral supplement.
In addition, the probability value is 0 which is less than 0.05 level of significance, indicates that the
null hypothesis is rejected. This means that there is a significant difference on the cholesterol count of the
participants after taking the mineral supplement when grouped according to position. Based on the post
hoc analysis, the cholesterol count of the administrators after the medication is significantly higher than
the rest of the group.

6. Is there a significant correlation on the respondents' age, monthly

salary, and cholesterol count before exposure to medication?

Step 1:
Ho: There are no significant correlations on the respondents' age, monthly
salary, and cholesterol count before exposure to medication.
Ha: There are significant correlations on the respondents' age, monthly salary,
and cholesterol count before exposure to medication.
Step 2: α=0.05
Step 3: Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r )/ t-test for r
Step 4: Decision
Table 11: Significant Correlation On The Respondents' Age, Monthly Salary, And Cholesterol Count Before
Exposure To Medication
month cholester
ly ol count
Decision age salary before
0.566*
Age r 1 * 0.900**
PV 0 0
Reject
Decision Ho Reject Ho
0.566
monthly salary r ** 1 0.526**
PV 0 0
Reject
Decision Ho Reject Ho
0.900 0.526*
cholesterol count before r ** * 1
PV 0 0
Reject Reject
Decision Ho Ho
** Correlation is significant at the
0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 5 presents the significant correlations on the respondents' age, monthly salary, and cholesterol
count before exposure to medication.
Step 5: Interpretation
As shown in the table, the probability values are all less than 0.05 level of significance, hence the null
hypotheses are rejected. This means that there are significant correlations on the respondents' age,
monthly salary, and cholesterol count before exposure to medication. In addition, the r values range from
0.526 to 0.900 indicating a high positive relationship. This further means that an increasing in age implies
a higher salary and a higher level of cholesterol count. Also, a higher salary level contributes to a higher
cholesterol count.RRL

7. Is there a significant relationship between the respondents'

cholesterol level after their medication and their position?
Step 1:
Ho: There is no significant relationship between the respondents' cholesterol
level after their medication and their position.
Ha: There is significant relationship between the respondents' cholesterol level
after their medication and their position.

Step 2: α=0.05
Step 3: Chi-square Test

Step 4: Decision
Table 12. Significant Relationship Between The Respondents' Cholesterol Level After Their Medication And
Their Position
position Total
Cholestero administrat facult sta maintenan Decisio
l Level or y ff ce c2 PV n
desirable Reject
level 0 26 26 16 68 38.717a 0 HO
borderline 28 14 26 4 72
Total 28 40 52 20 140

Step 5: Interpretation
Table 12 presents the significant relationship between the respondents' cholesterol level after their
medication and their position.
As shown in the table, the probability value of 0 is less than 0.05 level of significance, hence the null
hypothesis is rejected. This means that there is a significant relationship between the respondents'
cholesterol level after their medication and their position. Based on the table, the cholesterol count of the
administrators is within the borderline while the faculty, staff, and maintenance have their cholesterol
count falling within the desirable level. RRL

8. Is there a significant difference on the respondents' cholesterol

level after their medication across age group?
Step 1:
Ho: There is no significant difference on the respondents' cholesterol level
after their medication across age group.
Ha: There is a significant difference on the respondents' cholesterol level after
their medication across age group.

Step 2: α=0.05
Step 3: Chi-Square Test

Step 4: Decision
Table 13. Significant Difference on The Respondents' Cholesterol Level After Their Medication Across Age
Group
Decisio
adult age level Total c2 PV n
youn
Cholestero g middle
l Level adult adult old adult
desirable 26.034 0.000 Reject
level 36 18 14 68 a HO
borderline 40 0 33 73
Total 76 18 47 141

Step 5: Interpretation
Table 7 shows the significant difference on the respondents' cholesterol level after their medication across
age group.
As shown in the table, the probability value of 0 is less than 0.05 level of significance, hence the null
hypothesis is rejected. This means that there is a significant difference on the respondents' cholesterol
level after their medication across age groups. Based on the table, the cholesterol count of the young
adult and old adults tend approach the borderline while those in the middle adult age group tend to have
a desirable cholesterol level. RRL
TEST OF NORMALITY
9. Determine whether participants’ age assume a normal distribution.
Tests of Normality
Step 1:
Ho: The data is approximately normal. (there is no significant departure from normality)
Ha: The data is not normality. (there is a significant departure from normality)

Step 2: α=0.05
Step 3: Kolmogorov Smirnov
Step 4: Decision
Kolmogorov-
Smirnova
Statistic df PV Decision
0.09 140 0.008 Reject Ho

Step 5: Interpretation
The data is not normal.