54
         EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                      COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT




                                 CHAPTER 4

        Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data

    This       chapter    presents      the    findings,     analysis       and

interpretation of data gathered whose main objective is to

found    out   the    expectations      and    perceptions      of       tourist

towards Filipino tour Guides.

    More specifically, the researchers sought to answer the

following questions:

    Sub problem No.1. How do the Local Tourists perceive the

Filipino Tour Guides in terms of:
55
            EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                         COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT




      1.1      Personality

                                          Table 4

                Respondents’ Assessments as to Personality

            Respondents               Tour Guide          Tourist             Total


Criteria                             WM        VI      WM           VI   WM           VI


Grooming                             4.71          O   4.05         O    4.38         O

Personal Hygiene                     4.29          O   4.19         O    4.24         O


Professional Appearance              4.71          O   4.19         O    4.45         O

Personal Integrity                   4.71          O   4.28         O    4.05         O


Flexibility                          4.86          O   4.37         O    4.62         O

           Composite Mean            4.67          O   4.21         O    4.44         O

       Table       4      presents   the    respondents’      assessment         as    to

personality.

       It can be gleaned from the data that all the criteria

were interpreted by the two groups of respondents as high

extent.        These        are   grooming    (WM=4.38);      personal          hygiene

(WM=4.24);             professional          appearance         (WM=4.50)             and

flexibility.
56
           EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                        COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT




       Legend


       Scale          Rate           Interpretation                        Symbol


       5       4.20    –   5.00                Outstanding                     O
       4       3.40    -   4.19                Very Good                       VG
       3       2.60    -   3.39                Good                            G
       2       1.80    –   2.59                Fair                            F
       1       1.00    -   1.79                Poor                            P

       The     overall       computed          weighted       mean    of   4.44          were

interpreted          the     respondents             as     high     extent         as     to

personality.


       1.2     Communication Skills


       Table     5     shows       the     respondents            assessment        as     to

communication skills.


       As shown in the data, two (2) out of five (5) criteria

were       interpreted       as     high       extent:       language      proficiency

(WM=4.52) and speak audibly (not too soft not too loud)

(WM=4.22)       while,       the   other       two    (2)     were    interpreted          as

moderate       extent.       These       are    not       using    highfalutin       words

(WM=2.89) and use non-verbal communication (WM=2.77). Only
57
             EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                          COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT




one (1) criterion was interpreted as great extent: try to

get rid of regional extent (WM=3.04).


                                         Table 5


           Respondents’ Assessment as to Communication Skills

             Respondents             Tour Guide             Tourist             Total
Criteria                            WM        VI       WM             VI   WM           VI


Language proficiency                4.71          O    4.33           O    4.52         O



                                    2.43          G    3.35           VG   2.89         G
Not using highfalutin words

Try to get rid of regional
                                    2.57          G    3.31           VG   3.04         VG
accent


Use non-verbal communication        2.14          G    3.51           VG   2.77         G
Speak audibly (not too soft, not
too loud )                          4.43          O     4             O    4.22         O
           COMPOSITE MEAN          3.26           VG   3.72           VG   3.49         VG




         In general, the computed value of weighted mean is 3.49

interpreted by the two groups of respondents as great extent

as to communication skills.


         1.3    Technical Skills
58
             EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                          COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT




       Table        6       reveals      the    respondents’                  assessment        as        to

technical skills.


                                               Table 6


              Respondents’ Assessment as to Technical Skills




                                         Tour Guide            Tourists                     Total
            Respondents


Criteria                                WM       VI       WM          VI             WM              VI


Punctuality                              5        O      4.21             O          4.61            O

                                        4.86      O      4.33             O          4.06            O
Resourcefulness


Sense of humor                          4.57      O      4.33             O          4.45            O

Tactfulness                             4.57      O      4.05             O          4.31            O

           Composite Mean               4.75      O      4.23             O          4.49            O




       As       revealed        in      the     data;     all        the        criteria            under

technical skills were interpreted by the respondents as high

extent.        These        are:     punctuality         (WM=4.61);             resourcefulness

(WM=4.60);           sense         of        humor    (WM=4.45)                and     tactfulness

(WM=4.31).
59
             EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                          COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT




       The       computed          weighted            mean        of    4.49    were       verbally

interpreted              by     the     respondents                as   high     extent      as        to

technical skills.


       1.4 Summary


       Table        7         presents       the       summary          on     the   respondents’

assessment on the Filipino Tour Guides.


                                              Table 7


    Summary on Respondents’ Assessment on the Filipino Tour

                                               Guides




           Respondents                 Tour Guide                  Tourists          Composite Mean


Criteria                              WM       VI             WM          VI         WM           VI


Personality                           4.67         O      4.21            O          4.44         O

                                      3.26     VG         3.72            VG         3.49         VG
Communication Skills


Techbical Skills                      4.75         O      4.23            O          4.49         O

      Composite Mean                  4.23         O      4.05            VG         4.14         VG
60
          EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                       COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT




    As       present    in   the       data,    two    (2)    out     of   three     (3)

criteria      were     interpreted         as       high     extent.       These     are

personality (WM=4.44) and technical skills (WM=4.49) while,

only were interpreted as great extent: communication skills

(WM=3.49).


    Generally, the overall computed weighted mean of 4.14

were interpreted by the two groups of respondents as great

extent.


    Sub-Problem         No.2      Is    there       significant     difference        on

perception of the local tourists to the Filipino Tour Guides

using the above mentioned variables?


    2.1 Personality


    Table 8 depicts the comparison on the assessment on

their personality.


    As depicted in the table, only one (1) criteria were

interpreted      t-value     is    lower       that    the    critical       value    of

1.645   at    0.05     percent     level       of    significance.         While,    the

other   four     (4)   criteria        were     interpreted      as    significant.
61
        EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                     COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT




These   are:   grooming     (t-value=3.01);      personal     hygiene   (t-

value=0.34);       professional         appearance        (t-value=2.53);

personal       integrity      (t-value=2.24);          flexibility      (t-

value=2.87).       Professional         Appearance        (t-value=2.53);

Personal    Integrity      (t-value=2.24)        and    Flexibility     (t-

value=2.87)
62
             EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                          COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT




                                             Table 8


           Comparison on the Assessment on their Personality



    Respondents      TOUR GUIDE         TOURIST                          T-test

                                                       t-computed
Criteria             WM      SD        WM      SD                     Interpretation   DECISION
                                                         value


GROOMING            4.71     0.45     4.05    0.91       3.01               S          Reject Ho


PERSONAL
                    4.29     0.70     4.19    0.87       0.34              NS          Accept Ho
Hygiene


PROFESSIONAL
                    4.71     0.45     4.19    0.76       2.53               S          Reject Ho
APPEARANCE


PERSONAL
                    4.71     0.45     4.28    0.58       2.24               S          Reject Ho
INTEGRITY


FLEXIBILITY         4.86     0.35     4.37    0.71       2.87               S          Reject Ho


 COMPOSITE MEAN     4.67     0.48     4.21    0.77       2.13               S          Reject Ho



Legend: CV at 5% = 1.645 NS – Not Significant S-Significant


          The     computed        t-value      of     2.13       is    higher      than     the

critical value of 1.64


5    at     0.05    percent         level    of      significance,         interpreted       as

significant hence, rejecting the hypothesis.
63
             EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                          COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT




2.2 Communication Skills


       Table 9 reflects the comparison on the assessment on

their communication skills.


                                            Table 9


  Comparison on the assessment on their Communication Skills




    RESPONDENTS        TOUR GUIDE      TOURIST                         t-test


Criteria               WM     SD     WM       SD    t-computed   Interpretation     DECISION
                                                      value


PUNCTUALTY              5      0     4.31    0.82     6.32               S         Reject Ho



RESOURCEFULNESS       4.86    0.35   4.33    0.67     3.17               S         Reject Ho



SENSE OF HUMOR        4.57    0.49   4.33    0.8      1.08               NS        Accept Ho




TACTFULNESS           4.57    0.49   4.05    0.86     2.29               S         Reject Ho


  COMPOSITE MEAN      4.75    0.33   4.23    0.79       3                S         Reject Ho




       As      reflected       on    the     data;     only      one     criterion       was

interpreted          as      not     significant:           sense       of      humor    (t-
64
         EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                      COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT




value=1.08) while the other three criteria were interpreted

as     significant.     These     are:        punctuality    (t-value-6.32);

resourcefulness         (t-value=3.17)           and       tactfulness       (t-

value=2.29).


       Generally the computed t-value of 3 is higher than the

critical     value      of    1.645      at     0.05     percent     level   of

significance; it was interpreted as significant therefore

the hypothesis is rejected.


       2.3 Technical Skills.


       Table 10 present the comparison on the assessment on

their technical skills.


       As presented in the data; four (4) out of (5) criteria

were     interpreted     as     significant.         These    are:    language

proficiency (t-value=1.88); not using highfalutin words (t-

value=1.88);      try    to     get   rid       of     regional    accent    (t-

value=1.94) and use non-verbal communication (t-value=3.00)

while, only one (1) were interpreted as not significant:

speak audibly (not too soft, not too loud) (t-value=1.34)
65
            EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                         COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT




                                          Table 10


      Comparison on the assessment on their Technical Skills




   RESPONDENTS        TOUR GUIDE          TOURIST                           t-test


Criteria              WM      SD        WM       SD     t-computed       Interpretation   DECISION
                                                            value


Language
                     4.71    0.45       4.33    0.71        1.85               S          Reject Ho
proficiency


Not using
                     2.43    1.18       3.35    1.31        1.88               S          Reject Ho
highfalutin words


Try to get rid of
                     2.57    1.18       3.51    1.23        1.94               S          Reject Ho
regional accent


Use non-verbal
                     2.14    0.99       3.40    1.26        3.00               S          Reject Ho
communication


Speak audibly        4.43    0.73       4.00    1.08        1.34              NS          Accept Ho


  Composite Mean     3.26    0.91       3.72    1.12        1.20              NS          Accept Ho




       Generally, the computed t-value of 1.20 is lower than

the    critical       value        of     1.645        at   0.05     percent          level     of

significant.         It     was     the        interpreted          as     not       significant

hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
66
            EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                         COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT




         2.4 Summary


         Table     11     shows    the    summary       on   the      comparison      on

respondents’ assessment the local tourist to the Filipino

Tour Guides.


                                         Table 11


    Summary on the Comparison on Responds Assessment of the

                 Local Tourist to the Filipino Tour Guides


  Respondents       Tour Guides     Tourist                        t-test


Criteria           WM       SD    WM      SD    t-computed   Interpretation    Decision
                                                value


Personality        4.67    0.48   4.21   0.77    2.13                S        Reject Ho

Communication      4.75    0.33   4.23   0.79       3                S        Reject Ho
Skills


Technical          3.26    0.91   3.72   1.12    1.20                NS       Accept Ho
Skills

 Composite Mean    4.23    0.57   4.05   0.89    0.71                NS       Accept Ho




         It can be gleaned from the data that two (2) criteria

were interpreted as significant. These are: personality (t-
67
        EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                     COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT




value=2.13)    and    communication     skills      (t-value=3.00)       while

technical    skills    (t-value=1.20)        were    interpreted        as   not

significant.


      Generally,     the     overall   computed     t-value   of     0.71    is

lower than the critical value of 1.645 at 0.05 percent level

of   significance     with    48   degrees   of     the   freedom.      It   was

interpreted as not significant therefore, the hypothesis is

accepted.

Chapter 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

  • 1.
    54 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT CHAPTER 4 Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data This chapter presents the findings, analysis and interpretation of data gathered whose main objective is to found out the expectations and perceptions of tourist towards Filipino tour Guides. More specifically, the researchers sought to answer the following questions: Sub problem No.1. How do the Local Tourists perceive the Filipino Tour Guides in terms of:
  • 2.
    55 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT 1.1 Personality Table 4 Respondents’ Assessments as to Personality Respondents Tour Guide Tourist Total Criteria WM VI WM VI WM VI Grooming 4.71 O 4.05 O 4.38 O Personal Hygiene 4.29 O 4.19 O 4.24 O Professional Appearance 4.71 O 4.19 O 4.45 O Personal Integrity 4.71 O 4.28 O 4.05 O Flexibility 4.86 O 4.37 O 4.62 O Composite Mean 4.67 O 4.21 O 4.44 O Table 4 presents the respondents’ assessment as to personality. It can be gleaned from the data that all the criteria were interpreted by the two groups of respondents as high extent. These are grooming (WM=4.38); personal hygiene (WM=4.24); professional appearance (WM=4.50) and flexibility.
  • 3.
    56 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT Legend Scale Rate Interpretation Symbol 5 4.20 – 5.00 Outstanding O 4 3.40 - 4.19 Very Good VG 3 2.60 - 3.39 Good G 2 1.80 – 2.59 Fair F 1 1.00 - 1.79 Poor P The overall computed weighted mean of 4.44 were interpreted the respondents as high extent as to personality. 1.2 Communication Skills Table 5 shows the respondents assessment as to communication skills. As shown in the data, two (2) out of five (5) criteria were interpreted as high extent: language proficiency (WM=4.52) and speak audibly (not too soft not too loud) (WM=4.22) while, the other two (2) were interpreted as moderate extent. These are not using highfalutin words (WM=2.89) and use non-verbal communication (WM=2.77). Only
  • 4.
    57 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT one (1) criterion was interpreted as great extent: try to get rid of regional extent (WM=3.04). Table 5 Respondents’ Assessment as to Communication Skills Respondents Tour Guide Tourist Total Criteria WM VI WM VI WM VI Language proficiency 4.71 O 4.33 O 4.52 O 2.43 G 3.35 VG 2.89 G Not using highfalutin words Try to get rid of regional 2.57 G 3.31 VG 3.04 VG accent Use non-verbal communication 2.14 G 3.51 VG 2.77 G Speak audibly (not too soft, not too loud ) 4.43 O 4 O 4.22 O COMPOSITE MEAN 3.26 VG 3.72 VG 3.49 VG In general, the computed value of weighted mean is 3.49 interpreted by the two groups of respondents as great extent as to communication skills. 1.3 Technical Skills
  • 5.
    58 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT Table 6 reveals the respondents’ assessment as to technical skills. Table 6 Respondents’ Assessment as to Technical Skills Tour Guide Tourists Total Respondents Criteria WM VI WM VI WM VI Punctuality 5 O 4.21 O 4.61 O 4.86 O 4.33 O 4.06 O Resourcefulness Sense of humor 4.57 O 4.33 O 4.45 O Tactfulness 4.57 O 4.05 O 4.31 O Composite Mean 4.75 O 4.23 O 4.49 O As revealed in the data; all the criteria under technical skills were interpreted by the respondents as high extent. These are: punctuality (WM=4.61); resourcefulness (WM=4.60); sense of humor (WM=4.45) and tactfulness (WM=4.31).
  • 6.
    59 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT The computed weighted mean of 4.49 were verbally interpreted by the respondents as high extent as to technical skills. 1.4 Summary Table 7 presents the summary on the respondents’ assessment on the Filipino Tour Guides. Table 7 Summary on Respondents’ Assessment on the Filipino Tour Guides Respondents Tour Guide Tourists Composite Mean Criteria WM VI WM VI WM VI Personality 4.67 O 4.21 O 4.44 O 3.26 VG 3.72 VG 3.49 VG Communication Skills Techbical Skills 4.75 O 4.23 O 4.49 O Composite Mean 4.23 O 4.05 VG 4.14 VG
  • 7.
    60 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT As present in the data, two (2) out of three (3) criteria were interpreted as high extent. These are personality (WM=4.44) and technical skills (WM=4.49) while, only were interpreted as great extent: communication skills (WM=3.49). Generally, the overall computed weighted mean of 4.14 were interpreted by the two groups of respondents as great extent. Sub-Problem No.2 Is there significant difference on perception of the local tourists to the Filipino Tour Guides using the above mentioned variables? 2.1 Personality Table 8 depicts the comparison on the assessment on their personality. As depicted in the table, only one (1) criteria were interpreted t-value is lower that the critical value of 1.645 at 0.05 percent level of significance. While, the other four (4) criteria were interpreted as significant.
  • 8.
    61 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT These are: grooming (t-value=3.01); personal hygiene (t- value=0.34); professional appearance (t-value=2.53); personal integrity (t-value=2.24); flexibility (t- value=2.87). Professional Appearance (t-value=2.53); Personal Integrity (t-value=2.24) and Flexibility (t- value=2.87)
  • 9.
    62 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT Table 8 Comparison on the Assessment on their Personality Respondents TOUR GUIDE TOURIST T-test t-computed Criteria WM SD WM SD Interpretation DECISION value GROOMING 4.71 0.45 4.05 0.91 3.01 S Reject Ho PERSONAL 4.29 0.70 4.19 0.87 0.34 NS Accept Ho Hygiene PROFESSIONAL 4.71 0.45 4.19 0.76 2.53 S Reject Ho APPEARANCE PERSONAL 4.71 0.45 4.28 0.58 2.24 S Reject Ho INTEGRITY FLEXIBILITY 4.86 0.35 4.37 0.71 2.87 S Reject Ho COMPOSITE MEAN 4.67 0.48 4.21 0.77 2.13 S Reject Ho Legend: CV at 5% = 1.645 NS – Not Significant S-Significant The computed t-value of 2.13 is higher than the critical value of 1.64 5 at 0.05 percent level of significance, interpreted as significant hence, rejecting the hypothesis.
  • 10.
    63 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT 2.2 Communication Skills Table 9 reflects the comparison on the assessment on their communication skills. Table 9 Comparison on the assessment on their Communication Skills RESPONDENTS TOUR GUIDE TOURIST t-test Criteria WM SD WM SD t-computed Interpretation DECISION value PUNCTUALTY 5 0 4.31 0.82 6.32 S Reject Ho RESOURCEFULNESS 4.86 0.35 4.33 0.67 3.17 S Reject Ho SENSE OF HUMOR 4.57 0.49 4.33 0.8 1.08 NS Accept Ho TACTFULNESS 4.57 0.49 4.05 0.86 2.29 S Reject Ho COMPOSITE MEAN 4.75 0.33 4.23 0.79 3 S Reject Ho As reflected on the data; only one criterion was interpreted as not significant: sense of humor (t-
  • 11.
    64 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT value=1.08) while the other three criteria were interpreted as significant. These are: punctuality (t-value-6.32); resourcefulness (t-value=3.17) and tactfulness (t- value=2.29). Generally the computed t-value of 3 is higher than the critical value of 1.645 at 0.05 percent level of significance; it was interpreted as significant therefore the hypothesis is rejected. 2.3 Technical Skills. Table 10 present the comparison on the assessment on their technical skills. As presented in the data; four (4) out of (5) criteria were interpreted as significant. These are: language proficiency (t-value=1.88); not using highfalutin words (t- value=1.88); try to get rid of regional accent (t- value=1.94) and use non-verbal communication (t-value=3.00) while, only one (1) were interpreted as not significant: speak audibly (not too soft, not too loud) (t-value=1.34)
  • 12.
    65 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT Table 10 Comparison on the assessment on their Technical Skills RESPONDENTS TOUR GUIDE TOURIST t-test Criteria WM SD WM SD t-computed Interpretation DECISION value Language 4.71 0.45 4.33 0.71 1.85 S Reject Ho proficiency Not using 2.43 1.18 3.35 1.31 1.88 S Reject Ho highfalutin words Try to get rid of 2.57 1.18 3.51 1.23 1.94 S Reject Ho regional accent Use non-verbal 2.14 0.99 3.40 1.26 3.00 S Reject Ho communication Speak audibly 4.43 0.73 4.00 1.08 1.34 NS Accept Ho Composite Mean 3.26 0.91 3.72 1.12 1.20 NS Accept Ho Generally, the computed t-value of 1.20 is lower than the critical value of 1.645 at 0.05 percent level of significant. It was the interpreted as not significant hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
  • 13.
    66 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT 2.4 Summary Table 11 shows the summary on the comparison on respondents’ assessment the local tourist to the Filipino Tour Guides. Table 11 Summary on the Comparison on Responds Assessment of the Local Tourist to the Filipino Tour Guides Respondents Tour Guides Tourist t-test Criteria WM SD WM SD t-computed Interpretation Decision value Personality 4.67 0.48 4.21 0.77 2.13 S Reject Ho Communication 4.75 0.33 4.23 0.79 3 S Reject Ho Skills Technical 3.26 0.91 3.72 1.12 1.20 NS Accept Ho Skills Composite Mean 4.23 0.57 4.05 0.89 0.71 NS Accept Ho It can be gleaned from the data that two (2) criteria were interpreted as significant. These are: personality (t-
  • 14.
    67 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT value=2.13) and communication skills (t-value=3.00) while technical skills (t-value=1.20) were interpreted as not significant. Generally, the overall computed t-value of 0.71 is lower than the critical value of 1.645 at 0.05 percent level of significance with 48 degrees of the freedom. It was interpreted as not significant therefore, the hypothesis is accepted.