One factor ANOVA

Mean n Std. Dev Table 1 shows the evaluatio

4.200 20 0.6531 TAODOR odor. Result showed that Tre
got a mean score of 2.985 in
2.985 20 0.5011 TBODOR poor. The control got the me
2.133 20 0.5013 TCODOR
2.000 20 0.0000 CONTROL
2.829 80 1.0010 Total

ANOVA table
Statistically, there is a signifi
Source SS df MS F p-value computed p-value = 1.06E-2
Treatment 61.5096 3 20.50318 88.28 1.06E-24 of no significant difference w
terms of odor.
Error 17.6507 76 0.23225
Total 79.1603 79

Post hoc analysis

p-values for pairwise t-tests
CONTROL TCODOR TBODOR TAODOR Table 2 shows the post hoc a
2.000 2.133 2.985 4.200 significant difference with Tr
B. The control has no signific
CONTROL 2.000
Treatments A and B.
TCODOR 2.133 .3856
TBODOR 2.985 8.96E-09 3.44E-07
TAODOR 4.200 1.77E-23 5.46E-22 1.22E-11

Tukey simultaneous comparison t-values (d.f. = 76)

CONTROL TCODOR TBODOR TAODOR
2.000 2.133 2.985 4.200
CONTROL 2.000
TCODOR 2.133 0.87
TBODOR 2.985 6.46 5.59
TAODOR 4.200 14.44 13.56 7.98

critical values for experimentwise error rate:

0.05 2.63
0.01 3.23

One factor ANOVA

Table 4 shows the evaluati
Mean n Std. Dev texture. Result showed tha
4.218 20 0.5643 TATEXTURE B got a mean score of 3.08
3.083 20 0.4306 TBTEXTURE poor. The control got the m
2.101 20 0.5737 TCTEXTURE
3.000 20 0.0000 CONTROL
3.100 80 0.8788 Total

ANOVA table Statistically, there is a signi

Source SS df MS F p-value the computed p-value = 3
Treatment 45.1843 3 15.06142 72.33 3.27E-22 hypothesis of no significan
Error 15.8258 76 0.20823 treaments in terms of text
 Statistically, there is a signi
the computed p-value = 3
hypothesis of no significan
treaments in terms of text
Total 61.0101 79

Post hoc analysis

p-values for pairwise t-tests
TCTEXTURE CONTROL TBTEXTURE TATEXTURE
2.101 3.000 3.083 4.218
Table 5 shows the post hoc
TCTEXTURE 2.101 significant difference with
CONTROL 3.000 2.35E-08 and control. The control ha
TBTEXTURE 3.083 2.01E-09 .5669 with Treatment A.
TATEXTURE 4.218 7.05E-24 1.58E-12 1.99E-11

Tukey simultaneous comparison t-values (d.f. = 76)

TCTEXTURE CONTROL TBTEXTURE TATEXTURE
2.101 3.000 3.083 4.218
TCTEXTURE 2.101
CONTROL 3.000 6.23
TBTEXTURE 3.083 6.81 0.58
TATEXTURE 4.218 14.67 8.44 7.87

critical values for experimentwise error rate:

0.05 2.63
0.01 3.23

One factor ANOVA

Mean n Std. Dev Table 7 shows the eval

4.133 20 0.5668 TASTIFFNESS stiffness. Result showe
3.101 20 0.6400 TBSTIFFNESS Treatment B got a mea
interpreted as poor. Th
2.251 20 0.4702 TCSTIFFNESS
3.000 20 0.0000 CONTROL
3.121 80 0.8268 Total

ANOVA table
Source SS df MS F p-value Statistically, there is a s
Treatment 35.9189 3 11.97296 50.31 5.11E-18 the computed p-value =
Error 18.0881 76 0.23800 hypothesis of no signifi
Total 54.0069 79 treaments in terms of s

Post hoc analysis

p-values for pairwise t-tests
TCSTIFFNESS CONTROL TBSTIFFNESS TASTIFFNESS
2.251 3.000 3.101 4.133
TCSTIFFNESS 2.251 Table 8 shows the post
CONTROL 3.000 6.21E-06 Treatment B has a signi
TBSTIFFNESS 3.101 4.65E-07 .5146 with Treaments A, B an
TASTIFFNESS 4.133 1.41E-19 1.99E-10 3.40E-09 significant difference w

Tukey simultaneous comparison t-values (d.f. = 76)

TCSTIFFNESS CONTROL TBSTIFFNESS TASTIFFNESS
2.251 3.000 3.101 4.133
TCSTIFFNESS 2.251
CONTROL 3.000 4.86
TBSTIFFNESS 3.101 5.51 0.65
TASTIFFNESS 4.133 12.20 7.34 6.69

critical values for experimentwise error rate:

0.05 2.63
0.01 3.23

One factor ANOVA

Mean n Std. Dev Table 10 shows the evalua

color. Result showed that
4.350 20 0.3821 TACOLOR got a mean score of 3.100
3.100 20 0.5077 TBCOLOR poor. The control got the m
2.233 20 0.6928 TCCOLOR
3.000 20 0.0000 CONTROL
3.171 80 0.8921 Total

ANOVA table
Source SS df MS F p-value Statistically, there is a sign
computed p-value = 9.81E
Treatment 46.0848 3 15.36158 69.53 9.81E-22 of no significant difference
Error 16.7911 76 0.22094 terms of stiffness.
Total 62.8759 79

Post hoc analysis

p-values for pairwise t-tests
TCCOLOR CONTROL TBCOLOR TACOLOR
2.233 3.000 3.100 4.350
TCCOLOR 2.233 Table 11 shows the post h
CONTROL 3.000 1.91E-06 Treatment B has a significa
with Treaments A, B and c
TBCOLOR 3.100 1.27E-07 .5053 significant difference with
TACOLOR 4.350 3.75E-23 9.28E-14 1.78E-12

Tukey simultaneous comparison t-values (d.f. = 76)

TCCOLOR CONTROL TBCOLOR TACOLOR
2.233 3.000 3.100 4.350
TCCOLOR 2.233
CONTROL 3.000 5.16
TBCOLOR 3.100 5.83 0.67
TACOLOR 4.350 14.24 9.08 8.41

critical values for experimentwise error rate:

0.05 2.63
0.01 3.23
Table 1 shows the evaluation of the organic hair polish by the twenty (20) evaluators in terms of
odor. Result showed that Treament A got a mean score of 4.200 interpreted as very good. Treatment B
got a mean score of 2.985 interpreted as good. Treament C got a mean score of 2.134 interpreted as
poor. The control got the mean score of 2.000 which means poor.

Statistically, there is a significant difference among the different treatments in terms of odor since the
computed p-value = 1.06E-24 is lesser than 0.05 alpha. The researchers rejected the null hypothesis
of no significant difference which means that there is a significant difference among the treaments in
terms of odor.

Table 2 shows the post hoc analysis p-values for pairwise t-tests in terms of odor. Treatment B has a
significant difference with Treatment A. Treatment C has a significant difference with Treaments A and
B. The control has no significant difference with Treatment C but has a significant difference with
Treatments A and B.

Table 4 shows the evaluation of the organic hair polish by the twenty (20) evaluators in terms of
texture. Result showed that Treament A got a mean score of 4.218 interpreted as excellent. Treatment
B got a mean score of 3.083 interpreted as good. Treament C got a mean score of 2.101 interpreted as
poor. The control got the mean score of 3.000 which means good.

Statistically, there is a significant difference among the different treatments in terms of texture since
the computed p-value = 3.27E-22 is lesser than 0.05 alpha. The researchers rejected the null
hypothesis of no significant difference which means that there is a significant difference among the
treaments in terms of texture.
Statistically, there is a significant difference among the different treatments in terms of texture since
the computed p-value = 3.27E-22 is lesser than 0.05 alpha. The researchers rejected the null
hypothesis of no significant difference which means that there is a significant difference among the
treaments in terms of texture.

Table 5 shows the post hoc analysis p-values for pairwise t-tests in terms of texture. Treatment B has a
significant difference with Treatment A. Treatment C has a significant difference with Treaments A, B
and control. The control has no significant difference with Treatment B but has a significant difference
with Treatment A.

Table 7 shows the evaluation of the organic hair polish by the twenty (20) evaluators in terms of
stiffness. Result showed that Treament A got a mean score of 4.133 interpreted as very good.
Treatment B got a mean score of 3.101 interpreted as good. Treament C got a mean score of 2.251
interpreted as poor. The control got the mean score of 3.000 which means good.

Statistically, there is a significant difference among the different treatments in terms of stiffness since
the computed p-value = 5.11E-18 is lesser than 0.05 alpha. The researchers rejected the null
hypothesis of no significant difference which means that there is a significant difference among the
treaments in terms of stiffness.

Table 8 shows the post hoc analysis p-values for pairwise t-tests in terms of stiffness. Treatment
Treatment B has a significant difference with Treatment A. Treatment C has a significant difference
with Treaments A, B and control. The control has no significant difference with Treatment B but has a
significant difference with Treatment A.
Table 10 shows the evaluation of the organic hair polish by the twenty (20) evaluators in terms of
color. Result showed that Treament A got a mean score of 4.350 interpreted as excellent. Treatment B
got a mean score of 3.100 interpreted as good. Treament C got a mean score of 2.233 interpreted as
poor. The control got the mean score of 3.000 which means good.

Statistically, there is a significant difference among the different treatments in terms of color since the
computed p-value = 9.81E-22 is lesser than 0.05 alpha. The researchers rejected the null hypothesis
of no significant difference which means that there is a significant difference among the treaments in
terms of stiffness.

Table 11 shows the post hoc analysis p-values for pairwise t-tests in terms of color. Treatment
Treatment B has a significant difference with Treatment A. Treatment C has a significant difference
with Treaments A, B and control. The control has no significant difference with Treatment B but has a
significant difference with Treatment A.
TAODOR TBODOR TCODOR CONTROL
4 3.67 2.33 2
2.67 3 2.67 2
4 2 1.67 2
4.33 2.67 1.33 2
4.33 2.67 2 2
3.33 2.67 2 2
4.67 3.33 2 2
4 2.67 1.33 2
4.67 3.33 2 2
5 3.67 2 2
4.33 3.67 3 2
3.33 2.67 2 2
4.67 2 2 2
4.67 2.67 2.67 2
4.33 3 2 2
5 3 2.67 2
4.67 3.33 1.33 2
4.67 3.67 2.33 2
4.33 3 2.33 2
3 3 3 2
TATEXTURE TBTEXTURE TCTEXTURE CONTROL
3.67 3.33 3 3
4.33 3.33 1.33 3
2.67 3 2.67 3
3.67 2.33 2.33 3
4.33 2.67 1.33 3
3.67 2.67 1.67 3
4.33 3.33 2 3
4.67 3.33 2 3
4.67 2.67 2.67 3
4.67 3.33 1 3
4 3.67 1.67 3
4.67 3.33 1.67 3
3.67 3 2.33 3
4.67 2.33 2 3
4.67 2.67 2 3
4.33 2.67 1.67 3
4.33 3.33 2.67 3
4.67 3.67 2.33 3
5 3.67 2.67 3
3.67 3.33 3 3
TASTIFFNESS TBSTIFFNESS TCSTIFFNESS CONTROL
4.33 3.67 1.67 3
3.33 3 2.67 3
3.33 3 2.33 3
4 2.67 1.33 3
3.67 2.67 2.33 3
4.67 3.67 2 3
4.67 3.67 2.67 3
4.33 2 2 3
4.33 3.33 2 3
4.33 3.67 1.67 3
4 3 2.67 3
4.67 3 2.67 3
5 1.67 2 3
4 4.33 2 3
4.33 2.67 1.67 3
4 2.67 3 3
5 4 2.67 3
3.33 3 2.33 3
4.33 3.33 2.33 3
3 3 3 3
 TA TB TC CONTROL
Mean Difference of Density 7.17 7.22 7.03 6.1

Table 13 shows the mean difference of the different treatments of the hair polish in terms of density. Result
showed that after calculating the densities of the different treatments, Treament A got a mean score of 7.17
g/mL. Treatment B got a mean score of 7.22 g.mL. Treament C got a mean score of 7.03 g/mL. Lastly, the control
got a mean score of 6.1 g/mL.
ms of density. Result
a mean score of 7.17
g/mL. Lastly, the control