Ten Thesis

1
COLLEGE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT OF TARLAC

San Sebastian Village, Tarlac City
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Failure is conceptualized as the motive to avoid failure in evaluative
situations, associated with anticipatory shame and with the tendency to
appraise threat. Sport represents a significant achievement and evaluative
domain, where concerns about performance failure are the most prevalent
sources of stress for all athletes. This narrative review sought to explore the
origin of the fear of failure construct and his development in a sport context.
Research findings provide corroboration of the prevalence of problems
attributed to high fear of failure among athletes in achievement settings,
making it an imperative issue that cannot be overlooked. Consequentially,
specific directions for future research regarding fear of failure constructs in
sport are presented.
Fear of failure is an achievement motive disposition that predisposes
individuals to experience anxiety and apprehension, since individuals have
learned that failure is associated with aversive consequences Fear of
failure is conceptualized as the motive to avoid failure in evaluative
achievement contexts where failure is tangible In this evaluative situation,

2
where failure is possible, there is a tendency to appraise threat and shame.
Sport is a highly competitive domain, we’re concerns about performance
failure are the most prevalent sources of stress and worry for athletes. Many
athletes infer a win as a standard for success and loosing as a threat and
perceived it as a failure. Our main goal in this article review is to delineate
the nature and conceptualization of fear of failure, and to provide some
recommendations for future research on the fear of failure construct in the
sport domain.
In preparation for a grounded theory study exploring the fear of failure in
sport context, a literature search was conducted. Although systematic search
strategies offer a robust approach, the intention behind this review was not
to undertake a systematic review of the literature, but to consider the
context in which future studies would be positioned. Therefore, this article
comprises a descriptive summary and integration of some of the research
surrounding fear of failure. Ethical approval was not required as no human
subjects were involved in the research.
The investigation comprised a literature review (carried out in 2015),
accessing both peer reviewed and grey literature, which enabled us to build
a detailed picture on the fear of failure construct evolution, specifically in

3
sport settings. We took a narrative approach which enabled us to
synthesize the different types of literature and draw out themes across the
data to illuminate our main aim to be acquainted with one of the most
prevalent sources of stress in sport, the fear of failure.
One central component of fear of failure, that has long been conceptualized,
is shame. According to Atkinson (1966), fear of failure is a "disposition to
avoid failure and/or a capacity for experiencing shame or humiliation as a
consequence of failure.
Background of the Study
This study investigated some of the effects of a fear of failure that is related
to self-esteem. It was expected that the fear of failure group would have an
4
approach avoidance conflict about academic pursuits, and measures
reflecting this conflict were administered. How do students’ conceptualize
the causes of their own academic successes and failures? Taking a
phenomenological approach, students identified the causes of their
performance immediately following return of a graded examination. We then
used factor and item analyses to organize causes that were identified by a
substantial number of students into meaningful conceptual clusters, and
confirmed those empirically derived clusters in a different sample of students
using confirmatory factor analysis. That analysis indicated that students’
descriptions of the causes of their outcomes were consistent with a
hierarchical model in which specific causes such as effort and ability are
subsumed in one of two more general clusters—facilitating causes and
inhibiting causes—but many students explained their outcome by identifying
causes from both categories. At a practical level, measuring unitary causes
proved to be a reliable and valid way of assessing spontaneous thoughts
about what causes academic outcomes.
Theoretical Framework
The term “self esteem” is one oldest concepts in the field of psychology. The
term was coined by American Psychologist and Philosopher W. James in 190.
Self-esteem is usually defined as a personal judgement of worth living along

5
a dimension with positive and negative ends. It is also widely assumed that
self-esteem functions as a trait that is not stable across time within
individuals. In psychology, self-esteem or self-worth includes a person’s
subjective appraisal of himself or herself as intrinsically positive or negative
to some degree that may become more positive or negative as a person
encounters successes or failures in daily life.
According to Abraham Maslow’s theory of needs, developed in 1943, all
human beings have needs that are innate and are systematically arranged in
ascending (order) hierarchy of priority. The basic assumption in Maslow’s
theory is that the lower order pre-potent needs must be relatively satisfied
before the person can become aware of or motivated by higher order needs.
He described two different forms of esteem: the need for respect from
respect from others, and the need for self-respect, or inner self-esteem.
Respect from others entails recognition, acceptance, status, and
appreciation, and was believed to be more fragile and was believed to be
more fragile and easily lost than inner self-esteem.
Albert Bandura, has set forth the significance of self-esteem in his social
cognitive theory. Bandura elucidated that self-efficacy beliefs influence the
choices people make and the courses of action they pursue. Bandura (1997)
6
notes that efficacy beliefs play a vital role in the development of self-
directed life-long learners.
Research Paradigm
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

7
Effect of Failure of Ascertaining the

the Grade Eight Degree to which
learners of the the effect of
College of the Holy failure on English
Spirit of Tarlac in Determination of and Mathematics
terms of : the Significance of Achievements of
· English the effect of failure the Grade Eight
· Math of the College of students
· Science the Holy Spirit
students on their
Profile of Grade Eight self-esteem
Learners in Terms of
Self-esteem:
· Familial
Acceptance Better
· Academic Understanding of
Competence Each Students’
· Peer Popularity Individuality
· Personal
Security
Figure 1
The Effect of the concept of failure among Grade Eight athletes of
the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac
The paradigm of this study, illustrated in figure 1, presents for its input
the extent to which the grade eight children of the College of the Holy Spirit
8
encounter problems regarding interpersonal, intra personal, self-esteem,
and the Profile of Grade Eight Learners in Terms of Intelligence Quotient.
The figure also indicates three intended outputs, which include
awareness of the extent to which the students’ traumas are a variate to their
intelligence quotient, include a problem checklist in the students’
psychological assessment and gaining a better understanding of each
students’ individuality as a learner.
In order to realise the above outputs, the researcher determined the
impact of problems encountered on intelligence quotient through a test of
significance of correlation.
Statement of the Problem
The researcher wants to find out the common problems of the selected
grade eight students of the College of the Holy Spirit the Effects of failure
Specifically, the researcher desires to find the answers to the following
questions.
1. What is the demographic profile of the college students in terms of:

9
1. Age? And
1. 2 Gender?
2.
3. What is the Self-Esteem index profile of the Grade eight students of the
College of The Holy Spirit in terms of:
3.1 Familial acceptance
3.2 Academic Competence
3.3 Peer popularity
3.4 Personal security
4.
Hypothesis
There is no significant effect in the concept of failure among the
College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac athletes on their self-esteem.
Significance of the study
For the Administrators, it will benefit them to develop appropriate
understanding on how to handle different people with failure affecting their
self-esteem.
10
This research is also useful to the Teachers as a guide in planning
their instructional programs based on the strengths and weaknesses of
learners.
For the Guidance Counselor, the researcher hopes that they may
establish a program that will help the students whose affected by their
failure.
For the Parents of the said students would provide motivation as well
as encouragement to their children.
Finally, the study will help students to know their capabilities for
them to work harder for the upliftment of their academic education.
Scope and Limitation
The researcher used participants coming from the Grade Eight of the
College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac. This study is only limited to the Grade
Eight learners of the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac academic year 2019 -
2020. The result of this study is only applicable to the said respondents.
The research covers students from College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac
to correspond to the population of the grade eight learners of the College of

11
the Holy Spirit of Tarlac. The research discussed the common problems
encountered by the students and its effect on their self-esteem.
Definition of terms
To avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation in reading this study, the
defenition of the terms are describing as follows:
Ability- The quality of being able to acquire the knowledge or skills, facilities
achievement or accomplishment.
Academic competence- Conceptually, It measures self-esteem in
academic and intellectual pursuits. The item ask about as individual’s
perception of her or his abilities, relationships, attitudes, interests and
values as they pertain to school, education, academic skill, intelligence,
learning and other scholarly or intellectual pursuits. Operationally, is a
multidimensional construct composed of the skill, attitude, and behaviours of
a learner that contribute to academic success in the classroom.
Familial Acceptance- measures self-esteem at home and within the family
unit. The item ask about the individual’s perception of her or his abilities,
relationships, attitudes, interests, and values as they pertain to home,
parents, siblings, and family activities and interaction.

12
Self- Esteem- It is an individual’s evaluation of the self; the degree to
which one sees the self as capable, efficacious and the degree to which
individuals feel they are person of value. Generally, thought of as an
important personality, mental health professionals have a great deal of
interests in the self-esteem of children and adolescents, both in and out of
the school setting. Self-esteem often as cited as a correlate of the
emotional, behavioral, and academic problems experience byschool- aged
individuals.
Peer Popularity- It measures self-esteem in social situations and
interpersonal relationships with peers. The items ask about individual’s
perception of her or his abilities, attitudes, interest, and values as they
pertain to the quality, importance and nature of relationships and interaction
with peers outside the family units.
Personal Security- It measures self-esteem as it is reflected in a person’s
feelings about his or her physical and psychological being.

13
Chapter II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This section contains relevant academic study and read to give more
information about the topic to the reader. This section also presents some
evidences to support the study.
Foreign Literature
Kling et al. (2002) conducted a meta-analysis on gender differences in global
self-esteem with two analyses. In analysis I, a computerized literature
search of 97,121 respondents and in analysis II, the responses of
approximately 48,000 young Americans, from the National Center for
Education Statistics were used. The two analyses provided evidence that
males scored higher on standard measures of global self-esteem than
females, but the difference is small.
Scott, Rich, and James (2002) conducted a study on validity of life
satisfaction and self-esteem with a total sample of 290 middle school
students. The tools administered were the Self-Description Questionnaire-II
and the Students Life Satisfaction Scale. Children’s perception of their
academic competence was more strongly related to their global self-esteem
than their global life satisfaction whereas children’s perception of the quality
14
of their family relationship was the strongest correlate of their global life
satisfaction. The findings were then replicated with a sample of 183
elementary school students (grade 3-5). Taken together, the findings
provided strong support for the meaningfulness of the global life satisfaction
construct with children as well as the multidimensionality of children’s
subject well-being reports.
Hirsch and Rapkin (2003) conducted a longitudinal study regarding self
esteem, school life and social support to examine the psychological well-
being of students during the transition to junior high school. The participants
were 159 white and black students and the findings showed that self-esteem
was unchanged from the end of sixth through the middle of seventh grades,
rising by the end of seventh grade. Depressive and other symptoms
increased among girls’ overtime relative to boys. There is an increase in peer
social support only for blacks of high academic competence.
Richard (2003) carried out a cohort-sequential longitudinal study on self-
esteem development from young adulthood to old age. Data included 4
assessments from the Americans’ changing lives study across a 16-year
period of a nationally representative sample of 3,617 individuals aged 25
years to 104 years. Analysis indicated that self-esteem was increasing

15
during young and middle adulthood, reaching a peak at about age 60 years
and then declining in old age. Women had lower self-esteem than men in
young adulthood. More educated individuals had higher self-esteem than
less educated individuals. Moreover, the results suggested that changes in
socioeconomic status and physical health account for the decline in self-
esteem that occurs in old age.
Parker, Jennifer, Benson, and Mark (2004) conducted the national
educational longitudinal study to examine parental support and monitoring
on adolescent outcomes of self-esteem, substance abuse and delinquency.
Diverse samples of 16,749 adolescents were included and the findings
showed that high parental support and monitoring were related to greater
self esteem and lower risk behaviours.
Wild, Flisher, Bhana, and Lombard (2004) investigated the associations
among adolescents’ self-esteem in 6 domains and risk behaviours related to
substance use, bullying, suicidality and sexuality. A multistage strati¬ed
sampling strategy was used and a representative sample of 939 English,
Afrikaans and Xhosa-speaking students in Grades 8 and 11 were selected.
The multidimensional self-esteem questionnaire and a self-report
questionnaire were used to collect the data. The results showed that scores
16
on each self-esteem scale was signi¬cantly associated with at least one risk
behavior. Low self-esteem in the family and school contexts and high self-
esteem in the peer domain were signi¬cantly associated with multiple risk
behaviours in adolescents of both the sexes.
Heinonen, Raikkonen, and Jarvinen (2005) conducted a longitudinal study to
investigate the relation of self-esteem in early and late adolescence to
dispositional optimism-pessimism in adulthood. The subjects comprised a
population-based sample of young Finns and were investigated at ages 12,
18 and 33 years. The results revealed that adolescents with high self-esteem
at the age of 12 and 18 showed signi¬cantly lower levels of pessimism
compared to those with low self-esteem during the adolescent years.
Biro et al. (2006) conducted a longitudinal study to examine the changes in
self-esteem in relation to race and body mass. The samples were girls
recruited at ages 9 and 10 years and were followed to age 22 years. The
Harter self-perception pro¬le was administered every other year, analyzing
scores from the global self-worth scale at ages 9-12 years, 13-16 years and
17-22 years. The results showed that self-worth was greater in black than
white women and greater with lower body mass index in both races. The
17
findings revealed that race and body mass index are important predictors of
self-esteem.
Block and Robins (2008) in a longitudinal study examined the developmental
changes in self-esteem from early adolescence through late adolescence to
early adulthood. The samples included were 47 girls and 44 boys. The
findings showed that the self esteem of males increased and females
decreased over time. Boys and girls with high self esteem possessed quite
different personality characteristics in early adolescence. Although important
differences remained, the personality characteristics associated with high
self esteem were similar for the two sexes in early adulthood.
Holmstrom (2010) did a meta-analysis on self-esteem as a focus of
communication scholarship to examine the interactions that aid in the
development and maintenance of self-esteem in both children and adults.
The results showed that communication influences the development of
children’s self-esteem and it has important theoretical and pragmatic
implications.
Local literature
18
Almogela. L et al (2013) showed that there is no significant difference
between the relationship of self-esteem and health-related behavior when
grouped according to males and females. It implied that when it comes to
the variable gender, the relationship of self-esteem and health related
behavior of males and females are not significantly different from one
another. The researchers used the Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scalein Saint
tLouis University School of Nursing Baguio City. There is no significant
difference between self-esteem and health related behaviors ( Stress and
Gender in relation to Self- Esteem of University Business students, 2011).
This study in contradictory to some researches in which the relationship of
self-esteem and health-related behaviors of male and females shown that
there was a statistically significant difference with one another, which shows
that males scored significantly higher level of self-esteem that females (Self-
Esteem and optimism to rural youth: Gender differences, 2010).
Foreign Studies
19
Self-esteem is feel valued, passed the verification, acceptance and valuable
feeling in people about themselves. (Shamloo, 1993) When explained
aboutself-worth, self-esteem or feelings of the individual members of the
group is considered to be embodied. The most disturbing one of the most
complex personality problemsis feeling of inferiority. Children who feel
incompetence and backwardness, experience less success and doing less
efforts.Healthy growth requires that person’s not just to recognize self, but
rather work to understand their self. Valuable research about the
relationship between individual self-knowledge in relation to the healthy
growth and personality adaptations were made and the positive results were
reported. (Parsa, 1997) On the relationship between self-worth and self-
esteem and academic achievement, opinion of educators and teachers and
educators is that psychological factors influence academic success or failure.
Many experiments to explore the relationship between selfesteem and
academic achievement has been made. The most extensive research was
conducted by Gil dot and above results indicate the relationship between
achievement motivation and self-esteem. Another research is findings by
Cooper Smith on the self-esteem that was published in 1967.
Butler (1998) examine the relationship between self-esteem and academic
achievement and founded a relationship between self-esteem and academic

20
achievement in the students.Those with higher academic achievement
experience higher self-esteem. Veris (1993) stated that self-esteem is
positively associated with thescores of class in students with high self-
esteem, and credits received from class grades students who have low self-
esteem is inversely related. (Quoted from Meftah, 2002).
Kernis et al (1989) revealed that students with low academic performance
have low self-esteem and external control. Pope et al. (1989) confirmed a
positive relationship between self-esteem and high scores in schools. Cooper
Smith (1969) in their study concluded that children with high self-esteem,
those who feel the confidence, talent, creativity and self-expression, and
they are not easily influenced by environmental factors. He also founded that
there is no significant difference between the self-esteem of girls and boys.
Having self-esteem is necessary for a successful life and should be
strengthened in the students. self-esteem is valuable because provide
children’s perceptions of life experiences; social-emotional competence
which arises from the positive recognition of a persons, can help children as
a force to deal with serious problems in the future.Self-esteem is an
important aspect of children’s performance and overall traction and it seems
to be interactive with other areas such as mental health and academic
performance are linked, this means that self-esteem can be a cause and a
consequence of some kind of function that occurs in other areas. (Pope et

21
al., 1989) In discussing the importance and urgency of this matter can be
referred to the Quran and Hadith. Allah says in Surah Fatir verse ten:
“Whoever wants self-esteem, know that the oneness and the good is for God
(holy spirit) oneness God raised up, and its pure good deed.” and in the
eighth verse of Surah Munafiqun states that “esteem is for Prophet of Islam
and Muslims. Prophet in this context said “The life of man is inferior and
humiliating death and dying is even better and death with victory is
preferred to humiliating life.” The Prophet said: who has known his esteem,
certainly knew God. Imam Ali said: self-knowledge is the most useful
knowledge.
Local Studies
There are many cognitive and non-cognitive constructs that account for the
academic performance of college students. A priori knowledge proposes that
the ability to form an identity and awareness of oneself and the pattern of
behavior adopted by a student in the pursuit of learning are significant
vehicles in the educative process. Hence, this researcher conducted a cross-
sectional descriptive study where he attempted to establish the relationship
that exists between the levels of self-esteem, study habits and academic
performance of college students. Results from the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale (1965), the Study Habits Questionnaire (2001) and their general point
22
average (GPA) were manually organized and collated. The Pearson Product
Moment correlation and the Fisher’s exact test of correlation were used to
measure the relationship between the variables. There exists a weak positive
relationship between self-esteem and study habits of the respondents. There
is no significant relationship that exists between the levels of self-esteem
and academic performance. There is no significant relationship that exists
between the levels of study habits and academic performance. Ordinal
Logistic regression revealed that none of the independent variables or the
moderating variable significantly explains the variability in the academic
performance of the respondents.
CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
This chapter represent the subjects, method and instruments and
statistical treatment used in the stud
y.
23
Research Method
The researcher will employ the descriptive correlational method. This
method of study has been concerned with estimating the proportion of
population in a specified population who hold certain views. This is the
method best suited for the research since the focus of it is the of grade 9
students from College of the Holy Spirit with OFW children
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of this search will be composed of 233 Grade eight
learners of the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac.
Instrument Used
The instruments that has been used are the Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder Test, and the Otis-lennon school ability test (OLSAT). The
standardized tests were used as the primary tool to gather data relevant to
the study. The Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was divided into four
subscales: Life Threatening Trauma, Physical Trauma, Harm Avoidance
Trauma, and Emotional Trauma, The Otis-lennon school ability test (OLSAT)
was divided also into four subscales: Verbal Comprehension, Quantitative
Reasoning, Figural Reasoning, and Verbal Reasoning of the Grade Nine
learners of the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac.

24
Data Gathering Procedure
The Otis-lennon school ability test (OLSAT) was borrowed from the
Guidance Office of the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac with the
permission of one of the Guidance Associates. The researcher presented a
letter asking for permission to give the OLSAT to students. After preparing
the set of materials for the study and receiving permission to administer the
test, the researcher proceeded in conducting the study. The data will be
gathered through the administration of OLSAT to the respondents of the
study.
Statistical Treatment Data
The researcher used the following formula in determining the mean
score and to determine the significance of the relationship among the
variable.
Mean Formula
˙
∑f x
x=
N
˙
where x = average\mean
∑f x = summation of the frequency times value

25
N = number of paticipants
Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient
This was used to determine the relationship between the
following:
The Formula is:
∑x
¿
∑y
(¿)
N ∑ X Y −¿
r=¿
Where:
r = correlation between X and Y
X = deviation of the corresponding y variant from the
mean of the y distribution
= the sum of the products of deviation x times its
Corresponding deviation y
= standard deviation of the x distribution
= standard deviation of the y distribution
= sum of the squares of the deviation of the x variants
For the mean of the x distribution
= sum of the squares of the deviation of the y variants
For the mean of the y distribution

26
Where:
r = Pearson’s correlation coefficient
x = First Variable
y = Second Variable
T-Test
The T-test is used to find whether the results are significant or not.
The formula for the T-test is as follows:
Where:
N = total number of subjects
r = result of Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter describes the analysis of data followed by a discussion of
research findings. The findings relate to the research questions that guided
the study.
27
Table 1 – Demographic Profile of Grade 9 Learners of the College of

the Holy Spirit of Tarlac in Terms of Gender
Gender Frequency Percentage
Female 86 78.18%
Male 24 21.82%
TOTAL 110 100%
Table 1 illustrates that the majority of the respondents are female,
with a percentage of 78.18% from the total number of the sample
population. Male students are only measured to be at 21.82%.
This notable gap in the nominal comparison of the grade level’s male
and female population may be attributed to the institution’s history. Before
2001, the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac had primarily been an all-girls’
school. The year marked the discussion to begin accepting male enrollees.
Table 2 – Demographic Profile of Grade 9 Learners of the College of
the Holy Spirit of Tarlac in Terms of Age
Age Frequency Percentage
13 20 18.2%
28
14 52 47.3%
15 38 34.5%
TOTAL 110 100%
In Table 2, it is seen that most respondents, particularly 47.3% of
them, are at the age of 14, which is the majority of the participants’ age. On
the other hand, 34.5% of the sample population consist of 15-years-old.
While, thirteen-year-old learners are at the mere 18.2%.
Table 3 – Verbal Comprehension Classification of Grade 9 Learners of
Score Frequency Percentage Verbal
Interpretation
52-61 8 7.27 Above Average
29
42-51 37 33.64 High Average

32-41 15 13.64 Average
22-31 11 10.00 Low Average
12-21 18 16.36 Below Average
7-11 14 12.73 Low
1-6 7 6.36 Very Low
TOTAL 110 100
Within the Verbal section of the OLSAT is a subsection called Verbal
Comprehension. This section assesses abilities relating to understanding and
manipulating words in different contexts. A person's capacity to comprehend
the language utilized by other people, as ascertained by their receptive
vocabulary and linguistics abilities. At its core, the verbal comprehension
index measures a child’s ability to access his vocabulary, express himself in
a meaningful manner, and apply reasoning skills to information presented
verbally. The verbal comprehension index measures crystallized intelligence
and general knowledge, so children who perform well are frequently thought
of as bright and intelligent because they appear to be a storehouse of
information. The verbal comprehension index measures a child’s capacity to
apply word knowledge to reasoning skills to help in understanding his
environment. The capacity to access and find words is assessed on the
verbal comprehension index. Scores may be affected by cultural

30
opportunities, knowledge, and information that is available to the child. The
verbal comprehension index also measures the ability to retrieve
information, vocabulary, and verbal-reasoning and problem-solving skills.
As shown in the table 3, Above Average obtained 8 or 7.27%, High Average
got 37 or 33.64%, Average got 15 or 13.64%, Low Average got 11 or 10%,
Below Average got 18 or 16.36%, Low got 14 or 12.73%, Very Low got 7 or
6.36%. This means that majority of the respondents can express and
articulate what they want to say and likewise can spontaneously explain or
verbalize and can write what they have understood in what thay have read
or can express themselves of what they think and feel.
Table 4 – Quantitative Reasoning Classification of Grade 9 Learners
of the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac
Interpretation
72 11 10.00 Very Superior
62-71 43 39.09 Superior
32-41 6 5.45 Average
31
22-31 3 2.73 Low Average

7-11 4 3.64 Low
TOTAL 110 100
Quantitative Reasoning and math are inextricably linked, but while
math is primarily a discipline, Quantitative Reasoning is primarily a skill -
one with practical applications. Moreover, while mathematics is often
exclusive, frequently with a language of its own, Quantitative Reasoning is
inclusive, its language plain and everyday. Few people are trained to work
with complex mathematical concepts, but most can understand mathematics
well enough to develop informed opinions about quantitative concepts.
Quantitative reasoning is the developed ability to analyze quantitative
information and to determine which skills and procedures can be applied to a
particular problem to arrive at a solution. Quantitative reasoning, both
generally and for assessment purposes, has an essential problem-solving
focus. It includes the following six capabilities: reading and understanding
information given in various formats; interpreting quantitative information
and drawing inferences from it; solving problems using arithmetic, algebraic,
geometric, or statistical methods; estimating answers and checking for 2
reasonableness; communicating quantitative information; and recognizing

32
the limitations of mathematical or statistical methods. A detailed description
of the quantitative reasoning problem-solving process is presented. As
shown in the table 4, Very Superior obtained 11 or 10%, Superior got 43 or
39.09%, Above Average got 28 or 25.45%, High Average got 10 or 9.09%,
Average got 6 or 5.45%, Low Average got 3 or 2.73%, Below Average got 5
or 4.55%, Low got 4 or 3.64%. We can infer that majority of the
respondents can solve and interpret mathematical problems, can infer
mathematical relationships, and predict outcomes according to
computational rules.
Table 5 – Figural Reasoning Classification of Grade 9 Learners of the
College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac
Interpretation
72 3 2.73 Very Superior
62-71 14 12.73 Superior
32-41 10 9.09 Average
22-31 4 3.64 Low Average
7-11 2 1.82 Low
TOTAL 110 100
33
Abstract/figural reasoning tests require the ability to draw assumptions
and conclusions based on information supplied in the form of symbols or
matrices. On these tests, you are asked to identify a missing item or
diagram that completes a certain pattern of logic. Simply put, an
abstract/figural reasoning test is used to assess one’s ability to understand
and analyze visual information through pattern recognition, as well as one's
ability to generate hypotheses, change tracks, and critically evaluate. By
utilizing shapes and images to depict specific logic patterns and/or
processes, these tests are able to measure general intelligence, abstract
thinking skills, and how well you can problem solve. In addition, these tests
do not contain numbers or words. Rather, the questions are based on
patterns of provided shapes. Another reason why abstract/figural reasoning
tests are so common is because these tests aim to minimize cultural and
educational dependencies in order to provide an objective indication of
intellectual potential. As shown in the table 5, Very Superior obtained 3 or
2.73%, Superior got 14 or 12.73%, Above Average got 54 or 49.09%, High
Average got 21 or 19.09%, Average got 10 or 9.09%, Low Average got 4 or
3.64%, Below Average got 2 or 1.82%, Low got 2 or 1.82%. We can infer
that majority of the respondents has the ability to use geometric figures to
34
infer relationships, to perceive progressions, to generalize from one set of
figures to another, dissimilar set of figures, and to manipulate spatially.
Table 6 – Verbal Reasoning Classification of Grade 9 Learners of the
Interpretation
Range
62-71 1 0.91 Superior
32-41 25 22.73 Average
22-31 28 25.45 Low Average
12-21 33 30 Below Average
7-11 13 11.82 Low
1-6 3 1.82 Very Low
TOTAL 110 100
35
Verbal reasoning assesses ability to reasonably answer a question
expressed through words. The learner reads given information or a problem,
processes the information, forms a theory, and evaluates the outcome of the
problem. Verbal reasoning assesses ability to reasonably answer a question
expressed through words. The learner reads given information or a problem,
processes the information, forms a theory, and evaluates the outcome of the
problem. Verbal reasoning tests aim to identify your maximum
comprehension ability, or in other words, the most challenging passage of
text you will be able to understand. As gleaned from table 6, the Grade nine
learners belong to the different classifications in Verbal Reasoning
Intelligence Quotient. Results show that only 1 student is superior; 7 belong
to High Average; 25 are average; 28 students are low average; majority
belong to below average; while are low; and only 3 got very low. However,
only 33 or 30% have average or higher verbal reasoning, while majority 77
or 70% have low average or very low Verbal IQ. The result indicates that the
respondents have difficulty of infering relationships among words in a
sentence and supplying the missing word(s) necessary to complete the
sentence meaningfully.
36
Table 7 – Life Threatening Trauma Profile of Grade 9 Learners of the
Item Weighted Weighted Verbal

Item Statement
No. Score Mean Interpretation
You have experienced or

witnessed a life-
1 threatening event caused 174 1.58 Yes
intense fear,
helplessness, or horror.
Over-all 174 1.58 Yes
One item above garnered a “ Yes ” response from the respondents
which is the following item: 1: “You have experienced or witnessed a life-
threatening event caused intense fear, helplessness, or horror.” (WM =

37
1.58). The result indicates that the respondents have experienced
frightening situations in their life.
Table 8 – Life Threatening Trauma Classification of Grade 9 Learners
of the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac
Interpretation
1-5 45 40.90 Very Low
TOTAL 110 100
As shown in the table 8, Below Average obtained 65 or 59.09%, Very
Low got 45 or 40.90%. The result shows that the person experiencing the
distressing event may feel threatened, anxious, or frightened as a result. In
some cases, they may not know how to respond, or may be in denial about
38
the effect such an event has had. The person will need support and time to
recover from the traumatic event and regain emotional and mental stability.
Table 9 – Physical Trauma Profile of Grade 9 Learners of the College
of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac

Item Statement
Intense physical and/or

emotional distress when
4 you are exposed to 177 1.77 Yes
things that remind you of
the event
Acting or feeling as if the

event were happening
3 176 1.76 Yes
again (flashbacks or a
sense of reliving it)
Repeated, distressing
2 173 1.57 Yes
memories, or dreams
39
Over-all 175.33 1.7 Yes
Three items above garnered a “ Yes ” response from the respondents
which are the following items: 2: “Repeated, distressing memories, or
dreams” (WM = 1.57); Item 3: “Acting or feeling as if the event were
happening again (flashbacks or a sense of reliving it)” (WM = 1.76); and
Item 4: “Intense physical and/or emotional distress when you are exposed
to things that remind you of the event” (WM = 1.77). the result shows that
the respondents have experienced physical and emotional harm in the
events that occurred in the past.

40
Table 10 – Physical Trauma Classification of Grade 9 Learners of the
Interpretation
1-5 134 40.61 Very Low
TOTAL 330 100
As shown in the table 10, Below Average obtained 196 or 59.39%,
Very Low got 134 or 40.61%. Trauma often manifests physically as well as
emotionally. Some common physical signs of trauma include paleness,
lethargy, fatigue, poor concentration and a racing heartbeat. The victim may
41
have anxiety or panic attacks and be unable to cope in certain
circumstances. The physical symptoms of trauma can be as real and
alarming as those of physical injury or illness, and care should be taken to
manage stress levels after a traumatic event.
Table 11 – Harm Avoidance Trauma Profile of Grade 9 Learners of

Item Statement
Avoiding thoughts,
5 feelings, or conversations 172 1.56 Yes
about it
Avoiding activities and

6 places or people who 172 1.56 Yes
remind you of it
Blanking an important part

7 169 1.54 Yes
of it
Over-all 171 1.55 Yes

42
Three items above garnered a “ Yes ” response from the respondents
which are the following items: 5: “Avoiding thoughts, feelings, or
conversations about it” (WM = 1.56); Item 6: “Avoiding activities and places
or people who remind you of it” (WM = 1.56); and Item 7: “Blanking an
important part of it” (WM = 1.54). For item number 5, it seems to show that
the respondents avoids thinking or talking about their past traumatic
experiences. For item number 6, it seems to show that the respondents are
not fond of encountering anything that reminds them of their past traumatic
experiences. For item number 7, the respondents seems to deny the major
part of what happened to their past traumatic experiences.

43
Table 12 – Harm Avoidance Trauma Classification of Grade 9
Learners of the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac
Interpretation
1-5 130 41.94 Very Low
TOTAL 310 100
Table 12 shows the Harm Avoidance Trauma Classification of the
Grade Nine Learners of the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac.
One hundred eighty (180) respondents rated 58.06% which was
interpreted as below average, while one hundred thirthy (130) respondents
rated 41.94% which were interpreted as very low. The collected data shows
44
that among the respondents, majority of them are in below average level
when it comes to Harm Avoidance Trauma.
Table 13 – Emotional Trauma Profile of Grade 9 Learners of the

Item Statement
Feeling your range

10 of emotions is 177 1.61 Yes
restricted
Sensing that your

future has shrunk
(for example, you
11 don’t expect to have 174 1.58 Yes
a career, marriage,
children, or normal
life span)
Losing interest in
8 significant activities 172 1.56 Yes
of your life
Feeling detached
9 171 1.55 Yes
from other people
45
Over-all 173.5 1.58 Yes
Four items above garnered a “ Yes ” response from the respondents
which are the following items: 8: “Losing interest in significant activities of
your life” (WM = 1.56); Item 9: “Feeling detached from other people” (WM
= 1.55); Item 10: “Feeling your range of emotions is restricted” (WM =
1.61); and Item 11: “Sensing that your future has shrunk (for example, you
don’t expect to have a career, marriage, children, or normal life span)” (WM
= 1.58). Emotional trauma is the result of extraordinarily stressful events
that shatter your sense of security, making you feel helpless in a dangerous
world. Traumatic experiences often involve a threat to life or safety, but any
situation that leaves you feeling overwhelmed and isolated can result in
trauma, even if it doesn’t involve physical harm. It’s not the objective
circumstances that determine whether an event is traumatic, but your
subjective emotional experience of the event. The more frightened and
helpless you feel, the more likely you are to be traumatized.

46
Table 14 – Emotional Trauma Classification of Grade 9 Learners of
Verbal
Frequency Percentage
Score Interpretation
1-5 185 42.05 Very Low
TOTAL 440 100
Table 14 shows the Emotional Trauma Classification of the Grade Nine
Learners of the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac.
Two hundred fifty-five (255) respondents rated 57.95% which was
interpreted as below average, while one hundred eighty-five (185)
respondents rated 42.05% which were interpreted as very low. The collected
47
data shows that among the respondents, majority of them are in below
average level when it comes to Emotional Trauma.
Table 15 – Correlation between Verbal Comprehension and Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder of the Grade Nine Learners of the College
Post-
Traumatic Pearson Computed Tabular

Interpretation Interpretation
Stress (r) t-value t-value
Disorder
Life 0.85 High 2.22 1.98 Significant

Threatening Correlation
Physical -0.90 Very High 33.44 1.98 Significant
Trauma Correlation
Harm -0.91 Very High 26.26 1.98 Significant
Avoidance Correlation
Trauma
Emotional -0.94 Very High 40.10 1.98 Significant
Trauma Correlation
48
Given in this table, there is a high and very high correlation between
the verbal comprehension, and the post-traumatic stress disorder subscales
of the Grade Nine Learners of the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac. There
is a significant relationship between verbal comprehension and the post-
traumatic stress disorder of the respondents. The results indicate a direct
relationship between the verbal comprehension and the Life Threathening
Subscale of the Post Traumatic Stress that the Grade Nine Learners of the
College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac are experiencing. However, the other
subscales like Physical Trauma, Harm Avoidance Trauma and Emotional
Trauma have inverse relationship with the Verbal Comprehension of the
Learners because of the negative results. This implies that when the
respondents have undergone the aforementioned trauma their Verbal
Comprehnsion results are lower. On the other hand, if they have no Physical,
Harm Avoidance and Emotional Traumas, the result of their Verbal
Comprehnsion is higher.
49
Table 16 – Correlation between Quantitative Reasoning and Post-

50
Post-

Disorder

Physical 0.91 Very High -7.63 1.98 Significant
Trauma Correlation
Harm 0.93 Very High -3.66 1.98 Significant
Trauma
Emotional 0.93 Very High -4.86 1.98 Significant
Trauma Correlation
Given above, there is a high correlation and very high correlation
between the quantitative reasoning, and the post-traumatic stress disorder
subscales of the Grade Nine Learners of the College of the Holy Spirit of
Tarlac. There is a significant relationship between quantitative reasoning and
the post-traumatic stress disorder of the respondents. The results indicate a
direct relationship between the verbal comprehension and the four subscales
of post-traumatic stress disorder namely; Life Threatening, Physical Trauma,
Harm Avoidance Trauma and Emotional Trauma.

51
Table 17 – Correlation between Figural Reasoning and Post-

52
Post-

Disorder

Trauma Correlation
Trauma
Trauma Correlation
As presented in this table, there is a high correlation and very high
correlation between the figural reasoning, and the post-traumatic stress
disorder subscales of the Grade Nine Learners of the College of the Holy
Spirit of Tarlac. There is a significant relationship between figural reasoning
and the post-traumatic stress disorder of the respondents. The results
indicate a direct relationship between the verbal comprehension and the four
subscales of post-traumatic stress disorder namely; Life Threatening,
Physical Trauma, Harm Avoidance Trauma and Emotional Trauma.

53
Table 18 – Correlation between Verbal Reasoning and Post-

54
Post-

Disorder

Trauma Correlation
Trauma
Trauma Correlation
Given in this table, there is a high correlation and very high correlation
between the verbal reasoning, and the post-traumatic stress disorder
subscales of the Grade Nine Learners of the College of the Holy Spirit of
Tarlac. There is a significant relationship between verbal reasoning and the
post-traumatic stress disorder of the respondents. The results indicate a
direct relationship between the verbal comprehension and the four subscales
of post-traumatic stress disorder namely; Life Threatening, Physical Trauma,
Harm Avoidance Trauma and Emotional Trauma.

55
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

56
This chapter presents the summary or findings, conclusion and
recommendations based on the results of the study. The study aimed to
determine the effect of intelligence quotient on OFW’S traumatized children
of the Grade Nine Learners of the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac.
This study was conducted at College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac. There
were one hundred-ten (110) students who participated in the study. Eighty-
six (86) are females and twenty-four (24) are males. Descriptive-Correlation
method was used in this study. The researcher used a Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder test, and Otis-Lennon School Ability Test to collect the data needed
for the research.
Major Findings:
Major findings of the investigation are the following:
1. The demographic profile of the respondents.
1.1. Majority of the respondents are 14 years old.
1.2. Majority of the respondents are Female.
2. The summary of the results in the Otis-Lennon School Ability
Test of the respondents.
2.1. Most of the respondents answered “High Average” in the
subscale of Verbal Comprehension.
2.2. Most of the respondents answered “Superior” in the subscale of
Quantitative Reasoning.
57
2.3. Most of the respondents answered “Above Average” in the
subscale of Figural Reasoning.
2.4. Most of the respondents answered “Below Average” in the
subscale of Verbal Reasoning.
3. The summary of the results in the Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder Test of the respondents.
subscale of Life-threatening Trauma.
subscale of Harm Avoidance Trauma.
subscale of Physical Trauma.
subscale of Emotional Trauma.
Conclusion
The researcher concludes that the Family Strength and the Resiliency
and Emotional Well-being of the Grade Five Learners of the College of the
Holy Spirit of Tarlac have a significant relationship.

58
Recommendations
The results of this study may need further research, thus the following
recommendations are made:
1. For students who have low performance in school, teach the students
how to make their thinking visible.Encourage them to wonder out loud
and share their thoughts. Remind them to ask lots of questions, search
for answers, and make connections between what they learn and what
they already knew.
2. For students who are not resilient, they should be given proper
guidance. An evaluation be made after they had undergone the
training to find out their improvement.
3. For students whose emotional well-being is unstable, they should be
given regular guidance and counseling session with the authorized
people. An evaluation be made after they had undergone the training
to find out their improvement.

59
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Letter to the Principal
August 25, 2018
SISTER MARIETTA DUMADAG, S.S.P.S.

School Principal
60
Dear Sister:
Greetings in the name of the Holy Triune God!
I am a fourth-year college student taking up Bachelor of Science in
Psychology of this institution presently conducting a research entitled "THE
EFFECT OF INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT ON OFW’S TRAUMATIZED
CHILDREN OF THE GRADE NINE LEARNERS OF THE COLLEGE OF THE
HOLY SPIRIT OF TARLAC".
In this regard, the undersigned request the approval of your good
office to conduct the data gathering and collection on the month of August
and September.
Your approval to this request is highly appreciated. Thank you and God
bless.
Respectfully yours, Noted by:
RAMON KRISTOPHER P. ORTIZ SISTER MYRNA BATITAY, S. S.P.S.

Researcher Research Adviser
Recommending Approval:
SISTER FLORENCIA TUBAÑA, S.S.P.S. SISTER MARIETTA DUMADAG, S.S.P.S.
Dean/Directress Principal
APPENDIX B - Letter to the Directress
August 25, 2018

SISTER FLORENCIA TUBAÑA, S.S.P.S.
School Dean/Directress
61

Dear Sister:
I am a fourth-year college student taking up Bachelor of Science in
Psychology of this institution presently conducting a research entitled "THE
EFFECT OF INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT ON OFW’S TRAUMATIZED
CHILDREN OF THE GRADE NINE LEARNERS OF THE COLLEGE OF THE
HOLY SPIRIT OF TARLAC".
In this regard, the undersigned request the approval of your good
office to conduct the data gathering and collection on the month of August
and September.
Your approval to this request is highly appreciated. Thank you and God
bless.
Respectfully yours, Noted by:
RAMON KRISTOPHER P. ORTIZ SISTER MYRNA BATITAY, S. S.P.S.

Researcher Research Adviser
Recommending Approval:
SISTER FLORENCIA TUBAÑA, S.S.P.S. SISTER MARIETTA DUMADAG, S.S.P.S.
Dean/Directress Principal
APPENDIX C - Letter to the Guidance Center
August 25, 2018
SISTER MYRNA BATITAY, S.S.P.S., PH.D.

Guidance Coordinator
62
College of the Holy Spirit

Dear Sr. Myrna, and the Guidance Staff of the College and Upper Basic
Education Department:
I, Ramon Kristopher P. Ortiz, a 4th year student of the Psychology

Department of the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac, presently conducting
a research entitled " THE EFFECT OF INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT ON
OFW’S TRAUMATIZED CHILDREN OF THE GRADE NINE LEARNERS OF
THE COLLEGE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT OF TARLAC".
In line with this, I would like to ask for your approval to allow me to
administer to one hundred ten (110) learners from the grade nine students
of the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac. The data and information that will
be acquired from the test will be used in my undergraduate thesis and will
be classified as confidential.
Your approval in this requirement is highly appreciated
Thank you and God bless!
Respectfully yours, Approved by:
Ramon Kristopher P. Ortiz SISTER MYRNA BATITAY, S. S.P.S.

Researcher, BS-Psychology IV Guidance Coordinator
APPENDIX D – POST- TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

QUESTIONNAIRE
Name: _________________ Grade & Section: ________ Age: _____
Gender: ______
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Test
Are you troubled by the following?

63
Yes No
You have experienced or witnessed a

1. life-threatening event caused intense fear, helplessness, or
horror.
Do you re-experience the event in at least one of the following ways?
Yes No
Repeated, distressing memories, or dreams

2.
Acting or feeling as if the event were happening again
3. (flashbacks or a sense of reliving it)
Intense physical and/or emotional distress when you are
4. exposed to things that remind you of the event
Do reminders of the event affect you in at least three of the following

ways?
Yes No
5. Avoiding thoughts, feelings, or conversations about it
6. Avoiding activities and places or people who remind you of it
7. Blanking an important part of it
8. Losing interest in significant activities of your life
9. Feeling detached from other people
10. Feeling your range of emotions is restricted
11. Sensing that your future has shrunk (for example, you don’t
expect to have a career, marriage, children, or normal life
span)
64
Appendix E –Otis-Lenon School Ability Test Score of the Grade Nine
Learners of the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac
Respondents Verbal Verbal Figural Quantitative

Comprehension Reasoning Reasoning Reasoning
1 20 34 48 40
2 18 32 36 40
3 18 32 34 38
4 18 30 34 38
5 18 30 34 38
6 18 30 34 38
7 18 30 34 38
8 18 28 32 36
9 16 28 32 36
10 16 28 32 36
11 16 28 32 36
12 16 28 32 36
13 16 28 30 36
14 16 28 30 36
15 16 28 30 36
16 16 28 30 34
17 16 28 30 34
18 16 28 30 34
19 16 26 28 34
20 16 26 28 34
21 16 26 28 34
22 16 26 28 34
65
23 16 26 28 34
24 16 26 28 34
25 16 26 28 34
26 16 26 28 34
27 16 26 28 34
28 16 26 26 32
29 16 26 26 32
30 16 26 26 32
31 16 26 26 32
32 16 24 26 32
33 16 24 26 32
34 14 24 26 32
35 14 24 26 32
36 14 24 26 32
37 14 24 26 32
38 14 24 26 32
39 14 24 26 32
40 14 24 26 32
41 14 24 26 32
42 14 24 26 32
43 14 24 26 30
44 14 22 24 30
45 14 22 24 30
46 12 22 24 30
47 12 22 24 30
48 12 22 24 30
49 12 22 24 30
50 12 22 24 30
66
51 12 22 24 30
52 12 22 24 30
53 12 22 24 30
54 12 22 24 30
55 12 22 24 30
56 12 22 24 28
57 12 22 24 28
58 12 22 24 28
59 12 22 24 28
60 12 22 24 28
61 10 20 24 28
62 10 20 24 28
63 10 20 22 28
64 10 20 22 28
65 10 20 22 28
66 10 20 22 28
67 10 20 22 28
68 10 20 22 28
69 10 20 22 28
70 10 20 22 28
71 10 20 22 28
72 10 20 22 26
73 8 20 22 26
74 8 18 20 26
75 8 18 20 24
76 8 18 20 24
77 8 18 20 24
78 8 18 20 24
67
79 8 18 20 24
80 8 18 20 24
81 8 18 20 24
82 8 18 20 24
83 8 18 20 24
84 8 18 18 24
85 8 18 18 22
86 8 16 18 22
87 8 16 18 22
88 8 16 18 22
89 8 16 18 22
90 8 16 18 22
91 6 16 18 20
92 6 16 18 20
93 6 16 18 20
94 6 16 18 20
95 6 14 16 18
96 6 14 16 18
97 6 14 16 16
98 6 14 16 16
99 6 14 14 14
100 6 14 14 14
101 6 12 14 14
102 6 12 14 12
103 6 12 14 12
104 4 10 12 12
105 4 10 12 12
106 4 10 12 10
68
107 4 10 12 8
108 4 8 10 8
109 2 8 8 8
110 2 6 8 8
Appendix F –Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Test Score of the Grade
Nine Learners of the College of the Holy Spirit of Tarlac
Respondents Life Physical Harm Emotional

threatening trauma avoidance trauma
trauma trauma
1 15 45 45 60
2 15 45 45 60
3 15 45 45 60
4 15 45 45 60
5 15 45 45 60
6 15 45 45 60
7 15 45 45 60
8 15 45 45 60
69
9 15 45 45 50
10 15 45 45 50
11 15 45 45 50
12 15 45 45 50
13 15 45 45 50
14 15 45 45 50
15 15 45 45 50
16 15 45 45 50
17 15 45 45 50
18 15 45 45 50
19 15 45 45 50
20 15 45 45 50
21 15 45 45 50
22 15 45 45 50
23 15 45 35 50
24 15 35 35 50
25 15 35 35 50
26 15 35 35 50
27 15 35 35 50
28 15 35 35 50
29 15 35 35 50
30 15 35 35 50
31 15 35 35 50
32 15 35 35 50
33 15 35 35 50
34 15 35 35 50
35 15 35 35 50
36 15 35 35 50
70
37 15 35 35 50
38 15 35 35 50
39 15 35 35 50
40 15 35 35 50
41 15 35 35 50
42 15 35 35 50
43 15 35 35 50
44 15 35 35 50
45 15 35 35 50
46 15 35 35 50
47 15 35 35 50
48 15 35 35 50
49 15 35 35 50
50 15 35 35 50
51 15 35 35 50
52 15 35 35 50
53 15 35 35 40
54 15 35 35 40
55 15 35 35 40
56 15 35 35 40
57 15 35 35 40
58 15 35 35 40
59 15 35 35 40
60 15 35 35 40
61 15 35 35 40
62 15 35 35 40
63 15 35 35 40
64 15 35 35 40
71
65 15 35 25 40
66 5 35 25 40
67 5 35 25 40
68 5 35 25 40
69 5 35 25 40
70 5 25 25 40
71 5 25 25 40
72 5 25 25 40
73 5 25 25 40
74 5 25 25 40
75 5 25 25 40
76 5 25 25 40
77 5 25 25 40
78 5 25 25 40
79 5 25 25 40
80 5 25 25 40
81 5 25 25 40
82 5 25 25 40
83 5 25 25 40
84 5 25 25 40
85 5 25 25 40
86 5 25 25 40
87 5 25 25 40
88 5 25 25 40
89 5 25 25 30
90 5 25 25 30
91 5 25 25 30
92 5 25 25 30
72
93 5 25 25 30
94 5 25 25 30
95 5 25 15 30
96 5 25 15 30
97 5 25 15 30
98 5 25 15 30
99 5 25 15 30
100 5 25 15 30
101 5 25 15 30
102 5 25 15 30
103 5 25 15 30
104 5 25 15 30
105 5 15 15 30
106 5 15 15 30
107 5 15 15 30
108 5 15 15 20
109 5 15 15 20
110 5 15 15 20
Appendix G - Correlation between Verbal Reasoning and Life-

Threatening Trauma among the Grade Nine Learners of the College
73
X Y X2 Y2 XY
Life
Verbal Threatening
Respondents Reasoning Trauma
1 93 75 8556 5625 6938
2 90 75 8100 5625 6750
3 90 75 8100 5625 6750
4 88 75 7656 5625 6563
5 88 75 7656 5625 6563
6 88 75 7656 5625 6563
7 88 75 7656 5625 6563
8 85 75 7225 5625 6375
9 85 75 7225 5625 6375
10 85 75 7225 5625 6375
11 85 75 7225 5625 6375
12 85 75 7225 5625 6375
13 85 75 7225 5625 6375
14 85 75 7225 5625 6375
15 85 75 7225 5625 6375
16 85 75 7225 5625 6375
17 85 75 7225 5625 6375
18 85 75 7225 5625 6375
19 83 75 6806 5625 6188
20 83 75 6806 5625 6188
21 83 75 6806 5625 6188
22 83 75 6806 5625 6188
23 83 75 6806 5625 6188
74
24 83 75 6806 5625 6188

25 83 75 6806 5625 6188
26 83 75 6806 5625 6188
27 83 75 6806 5625 6188
28 83 75 6806 5625 6188
29 83 75 6806 5625 6188
30 83 75 6806 5625 6188
31 83 75 6806 5625 6188
32 80 75 6400 5625 6000
33 80 75 6400 5625 6000
34 80 75 6400 5625 6000
35 80 75 6400 5625 6000
36 80 75 6400 5625 6000
37 80 75 6400 5625 6000
38 80 75 6400 5625 6000
39 80 75 6400 5625 6000
40 80 75 6400 5625 6000
41 80 75 6400 5625 6000
42 80 75 6400 5625 6000
43 80 75 6400 5625 6000
44 78 75 6006 5625 5813
45 78 75 6006 5625 5813
46 78 75 6006 5625 5813
47 78 75 6006 5625 5813
48 78 75 6006 5625 5813
49 78 75 6006 5625 5813
50 78 75 6006 5625 5813
51 78 75 6006 5625 5813
75
52 78 75 6006 5625 5813

53 78 75 6006 5625 5813
54 78 75 6006 5625 5813
55 78 75 6006 5625 5813
56 78 75 6006 5625 5813
57 78 75 6006 5625 5813
58 78 75 6006 5625 5813
59 78 75 6006 5625 5813
60 78 75 6006 5625 5813
61 75 75 5625 5625 5625
62 75 75 5625 5625 5625
63 75 75 5625 5625 5625
64 75 75 5625 5625 5625
65 75 75 5625 5625 5625
66 75 58 5625 3403 4375
67 75 58 5625 3403 4375
68 75 58 5625 3403 4375
69 75 58 5625 3403 4375
70 75 58 5625 3403 4375
71 75 58 5625 3403 4375
72 75 58 5625 3403 4375
73 75 58 5625 3403 4375
74 73 58 5256 3403 4229
75 73 58 5256 3403 4229
76 73 58 5256 3403 4229
77 73 58 5256 3403 4229
78 73 58 5256 3403 4229
79 73 58 5256 3403 4229
76
80 73 58 5256 3403 4229

81 73 58 5256 3403 4229
82 73 58 5256 3403 4229
83 73 58 5256 3403 4229
84 73 58 5256 3403 4229
85 73 58 5256 3403 4229
86 70 58 4900 3403 4083
87 70 58 4900 3403 4083
88 70 58 4900 3403 4083
89 70 58 4900 3403 4083
90 70 58 4900 3403 4083
91 70 58 4900 3403 4083
92 70 58 4900 3403 4083
93 70 58 4900 3403 4083
94 70 58 4900 3403 4083
95 68 58 4556 3403 3938
96 68 58 4556 3403 3938
97 68 58 4556 3403 3938
98 68 58 4556 3403 3938
99 68 58 4556 3403 3938
100 68 58 4556 3403 3938
101 65 58 4225 3403 3792
102 65 58 4225 3403 3792
103 65 58 4225 3403 3792
104 63 58 3906 3403 3646
105 63 58 3906 3403 3646
106 63 58 3906 3403 3646
107 63 58 3906 3403 3646
77
108 60 58 3600 3403 3500

109 60 58 3600 3403 3500
110 58 58 3306 3403 3354
TOTAL 8410 7500 648688 518750 578625
MEAN 76.45 68.18 5897.16 4715.91 5260.23
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 76.45454545 68.181818

Variance 52.33736447 67.764804
Observations 110 110
Pearson Correlation 0.80351779
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 109
t Stat 17.5660109 Computed t-value
P(T<=t) one-tail 7.17487E-34
t Critical one-tail 1.658953458
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.43497E-33
Tabular t -
t Critical two-tail 1.98196749 value
78
Appendix H - Correlation between Verbal Reasoning and Physical

Trauma among the Grade Nine Learners of the College of the Holy
Spirit of Tarlac
X Y X2 Y2 XY
Verbal Physical
1 93 91 8556 8264 8409
2 90 91 8100 8264 8182
3 90 91 8100 8264 8182
4 88 91 7656 8264 7955
5 88 91 7656 8264 7955
6 88 91 7656 8264 7955
7 88 91 7656 8264 7955
8 85 91 7225 8264 7727
9 85 91 7225 8264 7727
10 85 91 7225 8264 7727
11 85 91 7225 8264 7727
12 85 91 7225 8264 7727
13 85 91 7225 8264 7727
14 85 91 7225 8264 7727
15 85 91 7225 8264 7727
16 85 91 7225 8264 7727
17 85 91 7225 8264 7727
79
18 85 91 7225 8264 7727

19 83 91 6806 8264 7500
20 83 91 6806 8264 7500
21 83 91 6806 8264 7500
22 83 91 6806 8264 7500
23 83 91 6806 8264 7500
24 83 82 6806 6694 6750
25 83 82 6806 6694 6750
26 83 82 6806 6694 6750
27 83 82 6806 6694 6750
28 83 82 6806 6694 6750
29 83 82 6806 6694 6750
30 83 82 6806 6694 6750
31 83 82 6806 6694 6750
32 80 82 6400 6694 6545
33 80 82 6400 6694 6545
34 80 82 6400 6694 6545
35 80 82 6400 6694 6545
36 80 82 6400 6694 6545
37 80 82 6400 6694 6545
38 80 82 6400 6694 6545
39 80 82 6400 6694 6545
40 80 82 6400 6694 6545
41 80 82 6400 6694 6545
42 80 82 6400 6694 6545
43 80 82 6400 6694 6545
44 78 82 6006 6694 6341
45 78 82 6006 6694 6341
80
46 78 82 6006 6694 6341

47 78 82 6006 6694 6341
48 78 82 6006 6694 6341
49 78 82 6006 6694 6341
50 78 82 6006 6694 6341
51 78 82 6006 6694 6341
52 78 82 6006 6694 6341
53 78 82 6006 6694 6341
54 78 82 6006 6694 6341
55 78 82 6006 6694 6341
56 78 82 6006 6694 6341
57 78 82 6006 6694 6341
58 78 82 6006 6694 6341
59 78 82 6006 6694 6341
60 78 82 6006 6694 6341
61 75 82 5625 6694 6136
62 75 82 5625 6694 6136
63 75 82 5625 6694 6136
64 75 82 5625 6694 6136
65 75 82 5625 6694 6136
66 75 82 5625 6694 6136
67 75 82 5625 6694 6136
68 75 82 5625 6694 6136
69 75 82 5625 6694 6136
70 75 73 5625 5289 5455
71 75 73 5625 5289 5455
72 75 73 5625 5289 5455
73 75 73 5625 5289 5455
81
74 73 73 5256 5289 5273

75 73 73 5256 5289 5273
76 73 73 5256 5289 5273
77 73 73 5256 5289 5273
78 73 73 5256 5289 5273
79 73 73 5256 5289 5273
80 73 73 5256 5289 5273
81 73 73 5256 5289 5273
82 73 73 5256 5289 5273
83 73 73 5256 5289 5273
84 73 73 5256 5289 5273
85 73 73 5256 5289 5273
86 70 73 4900 5289 5091
87 70 73 4900 5289 5091
88 70 73 4900 5289 5091
89 70 73 4900 5289 5091
90 70 73 4900 5289 5091
91 70 73 4900 5289 5091
92 70 73 4900 5289 5091
93 70 73 4900 5289 5091
94 70 73 4900 5289 5091
95 68 73 4556 5289 4909
96 68 73 4556 5289 4909
97 68 73 4556 5289 4909
98 68 73 4556 5289 4909
99 68 73 4556 5289 4909
100 68 73 4556 5289 4909
101 65 73 4225 5289 4727
82
102 65 73 4225 5289 4727

103 65 73 4225 5289 4727
104 63 73 3906 5289 4545
105 63 64 3906 4050 3977
106 63 64 3906 4050 3977
107 63 64 3906 4050 3977
108 60 64 3600 4050 3818
109 60 64 3600 4050 3818
110 58 64 3306 4050 3659
TOTAL 8410 8782 648688 707438 676977
MEAN 76.45 79.83 5897.16 6431.25 6154.34
Mean 76.45454545 79.834711

Variance 52.33736447 58.202772
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 109
t Stat -12.241522 Computed t-value
P(T<=t) one-tail 1.67983E-22
83
P(T<=t) two-tail 3.35966E-22

Tabular t-
Appendix I - Correlation between Verbal Reasoning and Harm

Avoidance Trauma among the Grade Nine Learners of the College of
the Holy Spirit of Tarlac
X Y X2 Y2 XY
Harm
Verbal Avoidance
1 93 91 8556 8264 8409
2 90 91 8100 8264 8182
3 90 91 8100 8264 8182
4 88 91 7656 8264 7955
5 88 91 7656 8264 7955
6 88 91 7656 8264 7955
7 88 91 7656 8264 7955
84
8 85 91 7225 8264 7727

9 85 91 7225 8264 7727
10 85 91 7225 8264 7727
11 85 91 7225 8264 7727
12 85 91 7225 8264 7727
13 85 91 7225 8264 7727
14 85 91 7225 8264 7727
15 85 91 7225 8264 7727
16 85 91 7225 8264 7727
17 85 91 7225 8264 7727
18 85 91 7225 8264 7727
19 83 91 6806 8264 7500
20 83 91 6806 8264 7500
21 83 91 6806 8264 7500
22 83 91 6806 8264 7500
23 83 82 6806 6694 6750
24 83 82 6806 6694 6750
25 83 82 6806 6694 6750
26 83 82 6806 6694 6750
27 83 82 6806 6694 6750
28 83 82 6806 6694 6750
29 83 82 6806 6694 6750
30 83 82 6806 6694 6750
31 83 82 6806 6694 6750
32 80 82 6400 6694 6545
33 80 82 6400 6694 6545
34 80 82 6400 6694 6545
35 80 82 6400 6694 6545
85
36 80 82 6400 6694 6545

37 80 82 6400 6694 6545
38 80 82 6400 6694 6545
39 80 82 6400 6694 6545
40 80 82 6400 6694 6545
41 80 82 6400 6694 6545
42 80 82 6400 6694 6545
43 80 82 6400 6694 6545
44 78 82 6006 6694 6341
45 78 82 6006 6694 6341
46 78 82 6006 6694 6341
47 78 82 6006 6694 6341
48 78 82 6006 6694 6341
49 78 82 6006 6694 6341
50 78 82 6006 6694 6341
51 78 82 6006 6694 6341
52 78 82 6006 6694 6341
53 78 82 6006 6694 6341
54 78 82 6006 6694 6341
55 78 82 6006 6694 6341
56 78 82 6006 6694 6341
57 78 82 6006 6694 6341
58 78 82 6006 6694 6341
59 78 82 6006 6694 6341
60 78 82 6006 6694 6341
61 75 82 5625 6694 6136
62 75 82 5625 6694 6136
63 75 82 5625 6694 6136
86
64 75 82 5625 6694 6136

65 75 73 5625 5289 5455
66 75 73 5625 5289 5455
67 75 73 5625 5289 5455
68 75 73 5625 5289 5455
69 75 73 5625 5289 5455
70 75 73 5625 5289 5455
71 75 73 5625 5289 5455
72 75 73 5625 5289 5455
73 75 73 5625 5289 5455
74 73 73 5256 5289 5273
75 73 73 5256 5289 5273
76 73 73 5256 5289 5273
77 73 73 5256 5289 5273
78 73 73 5256 5289 5273
79 73 73 5256 5289 5273
80 73 73 5256 5289 5273
81 73 73 5256 5289 5273
82 73 73 5256 5289 5273
83 73 73 5256 5289 5273
84 73 73 5256 5289 5273
85 73 73 5256 5289 5273
86 70 73 4900 5289 5091
87 70 73 4900 5289 5091
88 70 73 4900 5289 5091
89 70 73 4900 5289 5091
90 70 73 4900 5289 5091
91 70 73 4900 5289 5091
87
92 70 73 4900 5289 5091

93 70 73 4900 5289 5091
94 70 73 4900 5289 5091
95 68 64 4556 4050 4295
96 68 64 4556 4050 4295
97 68 64 4556 4050 4295
98 68 64 4556 4050 4295
99 68 64 4556 4050 4295
100 68 64 4556 4050 4295
101 65 64 4225 4050 4136
102 65 64 4225 4050 4136
103 65 64 4225 4050 4136
104 63 64 3906 4050 3977
105 63 64 3906 4050 3977
106 63 64 3906 4050 3977
107 63 64 3906 4050 3977
108 60 64 3600 4050 3818
109 60 64 3600 4050 3818
110 58 64 3306 4050 3659
TOTAL 8410 8636 648688 686446 666795
MEAN 76.45 78.51 5897.16 6240.42 6061.78

88
Mean 76.454545 78.5123967

Variance 52.337364 76.9236071
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
Df 109
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.116E-10
P(T<=t) two-tail 4.232E-10
Tabular t-
Appendix J - Correlation between Verbal Reasoning and Emotional

Spirit of Tarlac
X Y X2 Y2 XY
89
Verbal Emotional
1 93 90 8556 8100 8325
2 90 90 8100 8100 8100
3 90 90 8100 8100 8100
4 88 90 7656 8100 7875
5 88 90 7656 8100 7875
6 88 90 7656 8100 7875
7 88 90 7656 8100 7875
8 85 90 7225 8100 7650
9 85 83 7225 6944 7083
10 85 83 7225 6944 7083
11 85 83 7225 6944 7083
12 85 83 7225 6944 7083
13 85 83 7225 6944 7083
14 85 83 7225 6944 7083
15 85 83 7225 6944 7083
16 85 83 7225 6944 7083
17 85 83 7225 6944 7083
18 85 83 7225 6944 7083
19 83 83 6806 6944 6875
20 83 83 6806 6944 6875
21 83 83 6806 6944 6875
22 83 83 6806 6944 6875
23 83 83 6806 6944 6875
24 83 83 6806 6944 6875
25 83 83 6806 6944 6875
26 83 83 6806 6944 6875
90
27 83 83 6806 6944 6875

28 83 83 6806 6944 6875
29 83 83 6806 6944 6875
30 83 83 6806 6944 6875
31 83 83 6806 6944 6875
32 80 83 6400 6944 6667
33 80 83 6400 6944 6667
34 80 83 6400 6944 6667
35 80 83 6400 6944 6667
36 80 83 6400 6944 6667
37 80 83 6400 6944 6667
38 80 83 6400 6944 6667
39 80 83 6400 6944 6667
40 80 83 6400 6944 6667
41 80 83 6400 6944 6667
42 80 83 6400 6944 6667
43 80 83 6400 6944 6667
44 78 83 6006 6944 6458
45 78 83 6006 6944 6458
46 78 83 6006 6944 6458
47 78 83 6006 6944 6458
48 78 83 6006 6944 6458
49 78 83 6006 6944 6458
50 78 83 6006 6944 6458
51 78 83 6006 6944 6458
52 78 83 6006 6944 6458
53 78 77 6006 5878 5942
54 78 77 6006 5878 5942
91
55 78 77 6006 5878 5942

56 78 77 6006 5878 5942
57 78 77 6006 5878 5942
58 78 77 6006 5878 5942
59 78 77 6006 5878 5942
60 78 77 6006 5878 5942
61 75 77 5625 5878 5750
62 75 77 5625 5878 5750
63 75 77 5625 5878 5750
64 75 77 5625 5878 5750
65 75 77 5625 5878 5750
66 75 77 5625 5878 5750
67 75 77 5625 5878 5750
68 75 77 5625 5878 5750
69 75 77 5625 5878 5750
70 75 77 5625 5878 5750
71 75 77 5625 5878 5750
72 75 77 5625 5878 5750
73 75 77 5625 5878 5750
74 73 77 5256 5878 5558
75 73 77 5256 5878 5558
76 73 77 5256 5878 5558
77 73 77 5256 5878 5558
78 73 77 5256 5878 5558
79 73 77 5256 5878 5558
80 73 77 5256 5878 5558
81 73 77 5256 5878 5558
82 73 77 5256 5878 5558
92
83 73 77 5256 5878 5558

84 73 77 5256 5878 5558
85 73 77 5256 5878 5558
86 70 77 4900 5878 5367
87 70 77 4900 5878 5367
88 70 77 4900 5878 5367
89 70 70 4900 4900 4900
90 70 70 4900 4900 4900
91 70 70 4900 4900 4900
92 70 70 4900 4900 4900
93 70 70 4900 4900 4900
94 70 70 4900 4900 4900
95 68 70 4556 4900 4725
96 68 70 4556 4900 4725
97 68 70 4556 4900 4725
98 68 70 4556 4900 4725
99 68 70 4556 4900 4725
100 68 70 4556 4900 4725
101 65 70 4225 4900 4550
102 65 70 4225 4900 4550
103 65 70 4225 4900 4550
104 63 70 3906 4900 4375
105 63 70 3906 4900 4375
106 63 70 3906 4900 4375
107 63 70 3906 4900 4375
108 60 63 3600 4011 3800
109 60 63 3600 4011 3800
110 58 63 3306 4011 3642
93
TOTAL 8410 8667 648688 687089 667233

MEAN 76.45 78.79 5897.16 6246.26 6065.76
Mean 76.454545 78.7878788

Variance 52.337364 39.088129
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
Df 109
Tabular t-
94
Appendix K - Correlation between Verbal Comprehension and Life-

X Y X2 Y2 XY
Life
Verbal Threatening
Respondents Comprehension Trauma
1 83 75 6944 5625 6250
2 80 75 6400 5625 6000
3 80 75 6400 5625 6000
4 80 75 6400 5625 6000
5 80 75 6400 5625 6000
6 80 75 6400 5625 6000
7 80 75 6400 5625 6000
8 80 75 6400 5625 6000
9 77 75 5878 5625 5750
10 77 75 5878 5625 5750
11 77 75 5878 5625 5750
12 77 75 5878 5625 5750
13 77 75 5878 5625 5750
14 77 75 5878 5625 5750
15 77 75 5878 5625 5750
16 77 75 5878 5625 5750
17 77 75 5878 5625 5750
18 77 75 5878 5625 5750
95
19 77 75 5878 5625 5750

20 77 75 5878 5625 5750
21 77 75 5878 5625 5750
22 77 75 5878 5625 5750
23 77 75 5878 5625 5750
24 77 75 5878 5625 5750
25 77 75 5878 5625 5750
26 77 75 5878 5625 5750
27 77 75 5878 5625 5750
28 77 75 5878 5625 5750
29 77 75 5878 5625 5750
30 77 75 5878 5625 5750
31 77 75 5878 5625 5750
32 77 75 5878 5625 5750
33 77 75 5878 5625 5750
34 73 75 5378 5625 5500
35 73 75 5378 5625 5500
36 73 75 5378 5625 5500
37 73 75 5378 5625 5500
38 73 75 5378 5625 5500
39 73 75 5378 5625 5500
40 73 75 5378 5625 5500
41 73 75 5378 5625 5500
42 73 75 5378 5625 5500
43 73 75 5378 5625 5500
44 73 75 5378 5625 5500
45 73 75 5378 5625 5500
46 70 75 4900 5625 5250
96
47 70 75 4900 5625 5250

48 70 75 4900 5625 5250
49 70 75 4900 5625 5250
50 70 75 4900 5625 5250
51 70 75 4900 5625 5250
52 70 75 4900 5625 5250
53 70 75 4900 5625 5250
54 70 75 4900 5625 5250
55 70 75 4900 5625 5250
56 70 75 4900 5625 5250
57 70 75 4900 5625 5250
58 70 75 4900 5625 5250
59 70 75 4900 5625 5250
60 70 75 4900 5625 5250
61 67 75 4444 5625 5000
62 67 75 4444 5625 5000
63 67 75 4444 5625 5000
64 67 75 4444 5625 5000
65 67 75 4444 5625 5000
66 67 58 4444 3403 3889
67 67 58 4444 3403 3889
68 67 58 4444 3403 3889
69 67 58 4444 3403 3889
70 67 58 4444 3403 3889
71 67 58 4444 3403 3889
72 67 58 4444 3403 3889
73 63 58 4011 3403 3694
74 63 58 4011 3403 3694
97
75 63 58 4011 3403 3694

76 63 58 4011 3403 3694
77 63 58 4011 3403 3694
78 63 58 4011 3403 3694
79 63 58 4011 3403 3694
80 63 58 4011 3403 3694
81 63 58 4011 3403 3694
82 63 58 4011 3403 3694
83 63 58 4011 3403 3694
84 63 58 4011 3403 3694
85 63 58 4011 3403 3694
86 63 58 4011 3403 3694
87 63 58 4011 3403 3694
88 63 58 4011 3403 3694
89 63 58 4011 3403 3694
90 63 58 4011 3403 3694
91 60 58 3600 3403 3500
92 60 58 3600 3403 3500
93 60 58 3600 3403 3500
94 60 58 3600 3403 3500
95 60 58 3600 3403 3500
96 60 58 3600 3403 3500
97 60 58 3600 3403 3500
98 60 58 3600 3403 3500
99 60 58 3600 3403 3500
100 60 58 3600 3403 3500
101 60 58 3600 3403 3500
102 60 58 3600 3403 3500
98
103 60 58 3600 3403 3500

104 57 58 3211 3403 3306
105 57 58 3211 3403 3306
106 57 58 3211 3403 3306
107 57 58 3211 3403 3306
108 57 58 3211 3403 3306
109 53 58 2844 3403 3111
110 53 58 2844 3403 3111
TOTAL 7600 7500 530800 518750 523722
MEAN 69.09 68.18 4825.45 4715.91 4761.11
Mean 69.090909 68.1818182

Variance 52.376981 67.764804
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
Df 109
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0143223
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0286446
99
Tabular t-
Appendix L - Correlation between Verbal Comprehension and

Physical Trauma among the Grade Nine Learners of the College of
X Y X2 Y2 XY
Verbal Physical
1 83 91 6944 8264 7576
2 80 91 6400 8264 7273
3 80 91 6400 8264 7273
4 80 91 6400 8264 7273
5 80 91 6400 8264 7273
6 80 91 6400 8264 7273
7 80 91 6400 8264 7273
8 80 91 6400 8264 7273
9 77 91 5878 8264 6970
10 77 91 5878 8264 6970
100
11 77 91 5878 8264 6970

12 77 91 5878 8264 6970
13 77 91 5878 8264 6970
14 77 91 5878 8264 6970
15 77 91 5878 8264 6970
16 77 91 5878 8264 6970
17 77 91 5878 8264 6970
18 77 91 5878 8264 6970
19 77 91 5878 8264 6970
20 77 91 5878 8264 6970
21 77 91 5878 8264 6970
22 77 91 5878 8264 6970
23 77 91 5878 8264 6970
24 77 82 5878 6694 6273
25 77 82 5878 6694 6273
26 77 82 5878 6694 6273
27 77 82 5878 6694 6273
28 77 82 5878 6694 6273
29 77 82 5878 6694 6273
30 77 82 5878 6694 6273
31 77 82 5878 6694 6273
32 77 82 5878 6694 6273
33 77 82 5878 6694 6273
34 73 82 5378 6694 6000
35 73 82 5378 6694 6000
36 73 82 5378 6694 6000
37 73 82 5378 6694 6000
38 73 82 5378 6694 6000
101
39 73 82 5378 6694 6000

40 73 82 5378 6694 6000
41 73 82 5378 6694 6000
42 73 82 5378 6694 6000
43 73 82 5378 6694 6000
44 73 82 5378 6694 6000
45 73 82 5378 6694 6000
46 70 82 4900 6694 5727
47 70 82 4900 6694 5727
48 70 82 4900 6694 5727
49 70 82 4900 6694 5727
50 70 82 4900 6694 5727
51 70 82 4900 6694 5727
52 70 82 4900 6694 5727
53 70 82 4900 6694 5727
54 70 82 4900 6694 5727
55 70 82 4900 6694 5727
56 70 82 4900 6694 5727
57 70 82 4900 6694 5727
58 70 82 4900 6694 5727
59 70 82 4900 6694 5727
60 70 82 4900 6694 5727
61 67 82 4444 6694 5455
62 67 82 4444 6694 5455
63 67 82 4444 6694 5455
64 67 82 4444 6694 5455
65 67 82 4444 6694 5455
66 67 82 4444 6694 5455
102
67 67 82 4444 6694 5455

68 67 82 4444 6694 5455
69 67 82 4444 6694 5455
70 67 73 4444 5289 4848
71 67 73 4444 5289 4848
72 67 73 4444 5289 4848
73 63 73 4011 5289 4606
74 63 73 4011 5289 4606
75 63 73 4011 5289 4606
76 63 73 4011 5289 4606
77 63 73 4011 5289 4606
78 63 73 4011 5289 4606
79 63 73 4011 5289 4606
80 63 73 4011 5289 4606
81 63 73 4011 5289 4606
82 63 73 4011 5289 4606
83 63 73 4011 5289 4606
84 63 73 4011 5289 4606
85 63 73 4011 5289 4606
86 63 73 4011 5289 4606
87 63 73 4011 5289 4606
88 63 73 4011 5289 4606
89 63 73 4011 5289 4606
90 63 73 4011 5289 4606
91 60 73 3600 5289 4364
92 60 73 3600 5289 4364
93 60 73 3600 5289 4364
94 60 73 3600 5289 4364
103
95 60 73 3600 5289 4364

96 60 73 3600 5289 4364
97 60 73 3600 5289 4364
98 60 73 3600 5289 4364
99 60 73 3600 5289 4364
100 60 73 3600 5289 4364
101 60 73 3600 5289 4364
102 60 73 3600 5289 4364
103 60 73 3600 5289 4364
104 57 73 3211 5289 4121
105 57 64 3211 4050 3606
106 57 64 3211 4050 3606
107 57 64 3211 4050 3606
108 57 64 3211 4050 3606
109 53 64 2844 4050 3394
110 53 64 2844 4050 3394
TOTAL 7600 8782 530800 707438 612273
MEAN 69.09 79.83 4825.45 6431.25 5566.12
Mean 69.090909 79.8347107

Variance 52.376981 58.2027723
104

Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 109
Tabular t-
Appendix M - Correlation between Verbal Comprehension and Harm

X Y X2 Y2 XY
Harm
Verbal Avoidance
105
1 83 91 6944 8264 7576

2 80 91 6400 8264 7273
3 80 91 6400 8264 7273
4 80 91 6400 8264 7273
5 80 91 6400 8264 7273
6 80 91 6400 8264 7273
7 80 91 6400 8264 7273
8 80 91 6400 8264 7273
9 77 91 5878 8264 6970
10 77 91 5878 8264 6970
11 77 91 5878 8264 6970
12 77 91 5878 8264 6970
13 77 91 5878 8264 6970
14 77 91 5878 8264 6970
15 77 91 5878 8264 6970
16 77 91 5878 8264 6970
17 77 91 5878 8264 6970
18 77 91 5878 8264 6970
19 77 91 5878 8264 6970
20 77 91 5878 8264 6970
21 77 91 5878 8264 6970
22 77 91 5878 8264 6970
23 77 82 5878 6694 6273
24 77 82 5878 6694 6273
25 77 82 5878 6694 6273
26 77 82 5878 6694 6273
27 77 82 5878 6694 6273
28 77 82 5878 6694 6273
106
29 77 82 5878 6694 6273

30 77 82 5878 6694 6273
31 77 82 5878 6694 6273
32 77 82 5878 6694 6273
33 77 82 5878 6694 6273
34 73 82 5378 6694 6000
35 73 82 5378 6694 6000
36 73 82 5378 6694 6000
37 73 82 5378 6694 6000
38 73 82 5378 6694 6000
39 73 82 5378 6694 6000
40 73 82 5378 6694 6000
41 73 82 5378 6694 6000
42 73 82 5378 6694 6000
43 73 82 5378 6694 6000
44 73 82 5378 6694 6000
45 73 82 5378 6694 6000
46 70 82 4900 6694 5727
47 70 82 4900 6694 5727
48 70 82 4900 6694 5727
49 70 82 4900 6694 5727
50 70 82 4900 6694 5727
51 70 82 4900 6694 5727
52 70 82 4900 6694 5727
53 70 82 4900 6694 5727
54 70 82 4900 6694 5727
55 70 82 4900 6694 5727
56 70 82 4900 6694 5727
107
57 70 82 4900 6694 5727

58 70 82 4900 6694 5727
59 70 82 4900 6694 5727
60 70 82 4900 6694 5727
61 67 82 4444 6694 5455
62 67 82 4444 6694 5455
63 67 82 4444 6694 5455
64 67 82 4444 6694 5455
65 67 73 4444 5289 4848
66 67 73 4444 5289 4848
67 67 73 4444 5289 4848
68 67 73 4444 5289 4848
69 67 73 4444 5289 4848
70 67 73 4444 5289 4848
71 67 73 4444 5289 4848
72 67 73 4444 5289 4848
73 63 73 4011 5289 4606
74 63 73 4011 5289 4606
75 63 73 4011 5289 4606
76 63 73 4011 5289 4606
77 63 73 4011 5289 4606
78 63 73 4011 5289 4606
79 63 73 4011 5289 4606
80 63 73 4011 5289 4606
81 63 73 4011 5289 4606
82 63 73 4011 5289 4606
83 63 73 4011 5289 4606
84 63 73 4011 5289 4606
108
85 63 73 4011 5289 4606

86 63 73 4011 5289 4606
87 63 73 4011 5289 4606
88 63 73 4011 5289 4606
89 63 73 4011 5289 4606
90 63 73 4011 5289 4606
91 60 73 3600 5289 4364
92 60 73 3600 5289 4364
93 60 73 3600 5289 4364
94 60 73 3600 5289 4364
95 60 64 3600 4050 3818
96 60 64 3600 4050 3818
97 60 64 3600 4050 3818
98 60 64 3600 4050 3818
99 60 64 3600 4050 3818
100 60 64 3600 4050 3818
101 60 64 3600 4050 3818
102 60 64 3600 4050 3818
103 60 64 3600 4050 3818
104 57 64 3211 4050 3606
105 57 64 3211 4050 3606
106 57 64 3211 4050 3606
107 57 64 3211 4050 3606
108 57 64 3211 4050 3606
109 53 64 2844 4050 3394
110 53 64 2844 4050 3394
TOTAL 7600 8636 530800 686446 603121
MEAN 69.09 78.51 4825.45 6240.42 5482.92
109
Mean 69.090909 78.5123967

Variance 52.376981 76.9236071
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 109
Tabular t-
110
Appendix N - Correlation between Verbal Comprehension and

Emotional Trauma among the Grade Nine Learners of the College of
X Y X2 Y2 XY
Verbal Emotional
1 83 90 6944 8100 7500
2 80 90 6400 8100 7200
3 80 90 6400 8100 7200
4 80 90 6400 8100 7200
5 80 90 6400 8100 7200
6 80 90 6400 8100 7200
7 80 90 6400 8100 7200
8 80 90 6400 8100 7200
9 77 83 5878 6944 6389
10 77 83 5878 6944 6389
11 77 83 5878 6944 6389
12 77 83 5878 6944 6389
13 77 83 5878 6944 6389
14 77 83 5878 6944 6389
15 77 83 5878 6944 6389
16 77 83 5878 6944 6389
17 77 83 5878 6944 6389
18 77 83 5878 6944 6389
19 77 83 5878 6944 6389
20 77 83 5878 6944 6389
21 77 83 5878 6944 6389
111
22 77 83 5878 6944 6389

23 77 83 5878 6944 6389
24 77 83 5878 6944 6389
25 77 83 5878 6944 6389
26 77 83 5878 6944 6389
27 77 83 5878 6944 6389
28 77 83 5878 6944 6389
29 77 83 5878 6944 6389
30 77 83 5878 6944 6389
31 77 83 5878 6944 6389
32 77 83 5878 6944 6389
33 77 83 5878 6944 6389
34 73 83 5378 6944 6111
35 73 83 5378 6944 6111
36 73 83 5378 6944 6111
37 73 83 5378 6944 6111
38 73 83 5378 6944 6111
39 73 83 5378 6944 6111
40 73 83 5378 6944 6111
41 73 83 5378 6944 6111
42 73 83 5378 6944 6111
43 73 83 5378 6944 6111
44 73 83 5378 6944 6111
45 73 83 5378 6944 6111
46 70 83 4900 6944 5833
47 70 83 4900 6944 5833
48 70 83 4900 6944 5833
49 70 83 4900 6944 5833
112
50 70 83 4900 6944 5833

51 70 83 4900 6944 5833
52 70 83 4900 6944 5833
53 70 77 4900 5878 5367
54 70 77 4900 5878 5367
55 70 77 4900 5878 5367
56 70 77 4900 5878 5367
57 70 77 4900 5878 5367
58 70 77 4900 5878 5367
59 70 77 4900 5878 5367
60 70 77 4900 5878 5367
61 67 77 4444 5878 5111
62 67 77 4444 5878 5111
63 67 77 4444 5878 5111
64 67 77 4444 5878 5111
65 67 77 4444 5878 5111
66 67 77 4444 5878 5111
67 67 77 4444 5878 5111
68 67 77 4444 5878 5111
69 67 77 4444 5878 5111
70 67 77 4444 5878 5111
71 67 77 4444 5878 5111
72 67 77 4444 5878 5111
73 63 77 4011 5878 4856
74 63 77 4011 5878 4856
75 63 77 4011 5878 4856
76 63 77 4011 5878 4856
77 63 77 4011 5878 4856
113
78 63 77 4011 5878 4856

79 63 77 4011 5878 4856
80 63 77 4011 5878 4856
81 63 77 4011 5878 4856
82 63 77 4011 5878 4856
83 63 77 4011 5878 4856
84 63 77 4011 5878 4856
85 63 77 4011 5878 4856
86 63 77 4011 5878 4856
87 63 77 4011 5878 4856
88 63 77 4011 5878 4856
89 63 70 4011 4900 4433
90 63 70 4011 4900 4433
91 60 70 3600 4900 4200
92 60 70 3600 4900 4200
93 60 70 3600 4900 4200
94 60 70 3600 4900 4200
95 60 70 3600 4900 4200
96 60 70 3600 4900 4200
97 60 70 3600 4900 4200
98 60 70 3600 4900 4200
99 60 70 3600 4900 4200
100 60 70 3600 4900 4200
101 60 70 3600 4900 4200
102 60 70 3600 4900 4200
103 60 70 3600 4900 4200
104 57 70 3211 4900 3967
105 57 70 3211 4900 3967
114
106 57 70 3211 4900 3967

107 57 70 3211 4900 3967
108 57 63 3211 4011 3589
109 53 63 2844 4011 3378
110 53 63 2844 4011 3378
TOTAL 7600 8667 530800 687089 603422
MEAN 69.09 78.79 4825.45 6246.26 5485.66
Mean 69.090909 78.7878788

Variance 52.376981 39.088129
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 109
Tabular t-
115
Appendix O - Correlation between Figural Reasoning and Life-

X Y X2 Y2 XY
Life
Figural Threatening
1 98 75 9604 5625 7350
2 86 75 7396 5625 6450
3 84 75 7056 5625 6300
4 84 75 7056 5625 6300
5 84 75 7056 5625 6300
6 84 75 7056 5625 6300
7 84 75 7056 5625 6300
8 82 75 6724 5625 6150
9 82 75 6724 5625 6150
10 82 75 6724 5625 6150
11 82 75 6724 5625 6150
116
12 82 75 6724 5625 6150

13 80 75 6400 5625 6000
14 80 75 6400 5625 6000
15 80 75 6400 5625 6000
16 80 75 6400 5625 6000
17 80 75 6400 5625 6000
18 80 75 6400 5625 6000
19 78 75 6084 5625 5850
20 78 75 6084 5625 5850
21 78 75 6084 5625 5850
22 78 75 6084 5625 5850
23 78 75 6084 5625 5850
24 78 75 6084 5625 5850
25 78 75 6084 5625 5850
26 78 75 6084 5625 5850
27 78 75 6084 5625 5850
28 76 75 5776 5625 5700
29 76 75 5776 5625 5700
30 76 75 5776 5625 5700
31 76 75 5776 5625 5700
32 76 75 5776 5625 5700
33 76 75 5776 5625 5700
34 76 75 5776 5625 5700
35 76 75 5776 5625 5700
36 76 75 5776 5625 5700
37 76 75 5776 5625 5700
38 76 75 5776 5625 5700
39 76 75 5776 5625 5700
117
40 76 75 5776 5625 5700

41 76 75 5776 5625 5700
42 76 75 5776 5625 5700
43 76 75 5776 5625 5700
44 74 75 5476 5625 5550
45 74 75 5476 5625 5550
46 74 75 5476 5625 5550
47 74 75 5476 5625 5550
48 74 75 5476 5625 5550
49 74 75 5476 5625 5550
50 74 75 5476 5625 5550
51 74 75 5476 5625 5550
52 74 75 5476 5625 5550
53 74 75 5476 5625 5550
54 74 75 5476 5625 5550
55 74 75 5476 5625 5550
56 74 75 5476 5625 5550
57 74 75 5476 5625 5550
58 74 75 5476 5625 5550
59 74 75 5476 5625 5550
60 74 75 5476 5625 5550
61 74 75 5476 5625 5550
62 74 75 5476 5625 5550
63 72 75 5184 5625 5400
64 72 75 5184 5625 5400
65 72 75 5184 5625 5400
66 72 58 5184 3403 4200
67 72 58 5184 3403 4200
118
68 72 58 5184 3403 4200

69 72 58 5184 3403 4200
70 72 58 5184 3403 4200
71 72 58 5184 3403 4200
72 72 58 5184 3403 4200
73 72 58 5184 3403 4200
74 70 58 4900 3403 4083
75 70 58 4900 3403 4083
76 70 58 4900 3403 4083
77 70 58 4900 3403 4083
78 70 58 4900 3403 4083
79 70 58 4900 3403 4083
80 70 58 4900 3403 4083
81 70 58 4900 3403 4083
82 70 58 4900 3403 4083
83 70 58 4900 3403 4083
84 68 58 4624 3403 3967
85 68 58 4624 3403 3967
86 68 58 4624 3403 3967
87 68 58 4624 3403 3967
88 68 58 4624 3403 3967
89 68 58 4624 3403 3967
90 68 58 4624 3403 3967
91 68 58 4624 3403 3967
92 68 58 4624 3403 3967
93 68 58 4624 3403 3967
94 68 58 4624 3403 3967
95 66 58 4356 3403 3850
119
96 66 58 4356 3403 3850

97 66 58 4356 3403 3850
98 66 58 4356 3403 3850
99 64 58 4096 3403 3733
100 64 58 4096 3403 3733
101 64 58 4096 3403 3733
102 64 58 4096 3403 3733
103 64 58 4096 3403 3733
104 62 58 3844 3403 3617
105 62 58 3844 3403 3617
106 62 58 3844 3403 3617
107 62 58 3844 3403 3617
108 60 58 3600 3403 3500
109 58 58 3364 3403 3383
110 58 58 3364 3403 3364
TOTAL 8066 7499.67 596012 518750.2 554397.33
MEAN 73.33 68.18 5418.29 4715.91 5039.98
Mean 73.327273 68.1787879

Variance 41.781818 67.8260495
120

Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 109
Tabular t-
Appendix P - Correlation between Figural Reasoning and Physical

Spirit of Tarlac
X Y X2 Y2 XY
Figural Physical
1 98 91 9604 8264 8909
2 86 91 7396 8264 7818
3 84 91 7056 8264 7636
4 84 91 7056 8264 7636
5 84 91 7056 8264 7636
121
6 84 91 7056 8264 7636

7 84 91 7056 8264 7636
8 82 91 6724 8264 7455
9 82 91 6724 8264 7455
10 82 91 6724 8264 7455
11 82 91 6724 8264 7455
12 82 91 6724 8264 7455
13 80 91 6400 8264 7273
14 80 91 6400 8264 7273
15 80 91 6400 8264 7273
16 80 91 6400 8264 7273
17 80 91 6400 8264 7273
18 80 91 6400 8264 7273
19 78 91 6084 8264 7091
20 78 91 6084 8264 7091
21 78 91 6084 8264 7091
22 78 91 6084 8264 7091
23 78 91 6084 8264 7091
24 78 82 6084 6694 6382
25 78 82 6084 6694 6382
26 78 82 6084 6694 6382
27 78 82 6084 6694 6382
28 76 82 5776 6694 6218
29 76 82 5776 6694 6218
30 76 82 5776 6694 6218
31 76 82 5776 6694 6218
32 76 82 5776 6694 6218
33 76 82 5776 6694 6218
122
34 76 82 5776 6694 6218

35 76 82 5776 6694 6218
36 76 82 5776 6694 6218
37 76 82 5776 6694 6218
38 76 82 5776 6694 6218
39 76 82 5776 6694 6218
40 76 82 5776 6694 6218
41 76 82 5776 6694 6218
42 76 82 5776 6694 6218
43 76 82 5776 6694 6218
44 74 82 5476 6694 6055
45 74 82 5476 6694 6055
46 74 82 5476 6694 6055
47 74 82 5476 6694 6055
48 74 82 5476 6694 6055
49 74 82 5476 6694 6055
50 74 82 5476 6694 6055
51 74 82 5476 6694 6055
52 74 82 5476 6694 6055
53 74 82 5476 6694 6055
54 74 82 5476 6694 6055
55 74 82 5476 6694 6055
56 74 82 5476 6694 6055
57 74 82 5476 6694 6055
58 74 82 5476 6694 6055
59 74 82 5476 6694 6055
60 74 82 5476 6694 6055
61 74 82 5476 6694 6055
123
62 74 82 5476 6694 6055

63 72 82 5184 6694 5891
64 72 82 5184 6694 5891
65 72 82 5184 6694 5891
66 72 82 5184 6694 5891
67 72 82 5184 6694 5891
68 72 82 5184 6694 5891
69 72 82 5184 6694 5891
70 72 73 5184 5289 5236
71 72 73 5184 5289 5236
72 72 73 5184 5289 5236
73 72 73 5184 5289 5236
74 70 73 4900 5289 5091
75 70 73 4900 5289 5091
76 70 73 4900 5289 5091
77 70 73 4900 5289 5091
78 70 73 4900 5289 5091
79 70 73 4900 5289 5091
80 70 73 4900 5289 5091
81 70 73 4900 5289 5091
82 70 73 4900 5289 5091
83 70 73 4900 5289 5091
84 68 73 4624 5289 4945
85 68 73 4624 5289 4945
86 68 73 4624 5289 4945
87 68 73 4624 5289 4945
88 68 73 4624 5289 4945
89 68 73 4624 5289 4945
124
90 68 73 4624 5289 4945

91 68 73 4624 5289 4945
92 68 73 4624 5289 4945
93 68 73 4624 5289 4945
94 68 73 4624 5289 4945
95 66 73 4356 5289 4800
96 66 73 4356 5289 4800
97 66 73 4356 5289 4800
98 66 73 4356 5289 4800
99 64 73 4096 5289 4655
100 64 73 4096 5289 4655
101 64 73 4096 5289 4655
102 64 73 4096 5289 4655
103 64 73 4096 5289 4655
104 62 73 3844 5289 4509
105 62 64 3844 4050 3945
106 62 64 3844 4050 3945
107 62 64 3844 4050 3945
108 60 64 3600 4050 3818
109 58 64 3364 4050 3691
110 58 64 3364 4050 3691
TOTAL 8066 8781.82 596012 707438 648836.36
MEAN 73.33 79.83 5418.29 6431.25 5898.51
125
Mean 73.327273 79.8347107

Variance 41.781818 58.2027723
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 109
Tabular t-
126
Appendix Q - Correlation between Figural Reasoning and Harm

X Y X2 Y2 XY
Harm
Figural Avoidance
1 98 91 9604 8264 8909
2 86 91 7396 8264 7818
3 84 91 7056 8264 7636
4 84 91 7056 8264 7636
5 84 91 7056 8264 7636
6 84 91 7056 8264 7636
7 84 91 7056 8264 7636
8 82 91 6724 8264 7455
9 82 91 6724 8264 7455
10 82 91 6724 8264 7455
11 82 91 6724 8264 7455
12 82 91 6724 8264 7455
13 80 91 6400 8264 7273
14 80 91 6400 8264 7273
15 80 91 6400 8264 7273
16 80 91 6400 8264 7273
17 80 91 6400 8264 7273
18 80 91 6400 8264 7273
19 78 91 6084 8264 7091
20 78 91 6084 8264 7091
21 78 91 6084 8264 7091
127
22 78 91 6084 8264 7091

23 78 82 6084 6694 6382
24 78 82 6084 6694 6382
25 78 82 6084 6694 6382
26 78 82 6084 6694 6382
27 78 82 6084 6694 6382
28 76 82 5776 6694 6218
29 76 82 5776 6694 6218
30 76 82 5776 6694 6218
31 76 82 5776 6694 6218
32 76 82 5776 6694 6218
33 76 82 5776 6694 6218
34 76 82 5776 6694 6218
35 76 82 5776 6694 6218
36 76 82 5776 6694 6218
37 76 82 5776 6694 6218
38 76 82 5776 6694 6218
39 76 82 5776 6694 6218
40 76 82 5776 6694 6218
41 76 82 5776 6694 6218
42 76 82 5776 6694 6218
43 76 82 5776 6694 6218
44 74 82 5476 6694 6055
45 74 82 5476 6694 6055
46 74 82 5476 6694 6055
47 74 82 5476 6694 6055
48 74 82 5476 6694 6055
49 74 82 5476 6694 6055
128
50 74 82 5476 6694 6055

51 74 82 5476 6694 6055
52 74 82 5476 6694 6055
53 74 82 5476 6694 6055
54 74 82 5476 6694 6055
55 74 82 5476 6694 6055
56 74 82 5476 6694 6055
57 74 82 5476 6694 6055
58 74 82 5476 6694 6055
59 74 82 5476 6694 6055
60 74 82 5476 6694 6055
61 74 82 5476 6694 6055
62 74 82 5476 6694 6055
63 72 82 5184 6694 5891
64 72 82 5184 6694 5891
65 72 73 5184 5289 5236
66 72 73 5184 5289 5236
67 72 73 5184 5289 5236
68 72 73 5184 5289 5236
69 72 73 5184 5289 5236
70 72 73 5184 5289 5236
71 72 73 5184 5289 5236
72 72 73 5184 5289 5236
73 72 73 5184 5289 5236
74 70 73 4900 5289 5091
75 70 73 4900 5289 5091
76 70 73 4900 5289 5091
77 70 73 4900 5289 5091
129
78 70 73 4900 5289 5091

79 70 73 4900 5289 5091
80 70 73 4900 5289 5091
81 70 73 4900 5289 5091
82 70 73 4900 5289 5091
83 70 73 4900 5289 5091
84 68 73 4624 5289 4945
85 68 73 4624 5289 4945
86 68 73 4624 5289 4945
87 68 73 4624 5289 4945
88 68 73 4624 5289 4945
89 68 73 4624 5289 4945
90 68 73 4624 5289 4945
91 68 73 4624 5289 4945
92 68 73 4624 5289 4945
93 68 73 4624 5289 4945
94 68 73 4624 5289 4945
95 66 64 4356 4050 4200
96 66 64 4356 4050 4200
97 66 64 4356 4050 4200
98 66 64 4356 4050 4200
99 64 64 4096 4050 4073
100 64 64 4096 4050 4073
101 64 64 4096 4050 4073
102 64 64 4096 4050 4073
103 64 64 4096 4050 4073
104 62 64 3844 4050 3945
105 62 64 3844 4050 3945
130
106 62 64 3844 4050 3945

107 62 64 3844 4050 3945
108 60 64 3600 4050 3818
109 58 64 3364 4050 3691
110 58 64 3364 4050 3691
TOTAL 8066 8636.36 596012 686446.3 638981.82
MEAN 73.33 78.51 5418.29 6240.42 5808.93
Mean 73.327273 78.5123967

Variance 41.781818 76.9236071
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 109
Tabular t-
131
Appendix R - Correlation between Figural Reasoning and Emotional

Spirit of Tarlac
X Y X2 Y2 XY
Figural Emotional
1 98 90 9604 8100 8820
2 86 90 7396 8100 7740
3 84 90 7056 8100 7560
4 84 90 7056 8100 7560
5 84 90 7056 8100 7560
6 84 90 7056 8100 7560
7 84 90 7056 8100 7560
8 82 90 6724 8100 7380
9 82 83 6724 6944 6833
10 82 83 6724 6944 6833
11 82 83 6724 6944 6833
12 82 83 6724 6944 6833
13 80 83 6400 6944 6667
132
14 80 83 6400 6944 6667

15 80 83 6400 6944 6667
16 80 83 6400 6944 6667
17 80 83 6400 6944 6667
18 80 83 6400 6944 6667
19 78 83 6084 6944 6500
20 78 83 6084 6944 6500
21 78 83 6084 6944 6500
22 78 83 6084 6944 6500
23 78 83 6084 6944 6500
24 78 83 6084 6944 6500
25 78 83 6084 6944 6500
26 78 83 6084 6944 6500
27 78 83 6084 6944 6500
28 76 83 5776 6944 6333
29 76 83 5776 6944 6333
30 76 83 5776 6944 6333
31 76 83 5776 6944 6333
32 76 83 5776 6944 6333
33 76 83 5776 6944 6333
34 76 83 5776 6944 6333
35 76 83 5776 6944 6333
36 76 83 5776 6944 6333
37 76 83 5776 6944 6333
38 76 83 5776 6944 6333
39 76 83 5776 6944 6333
40 76 83 5776 6944 6333
41 76 83 5776 6944 6333
133
42 76 83 5776 6944 6333

43 76 83 5776 6944 6333
44 74 83 5476 6944 6167
45 74 83 5476 6944 6167
46 74 83 5476 6944 6167
47 74 83 5476 6944 6167
48 74 83 5476 6944 6167
49 74 83 5476 6944 6167
50 74 83 5476 6944 6167
51 74 83 5476 6944 6167
52 74 83 5476 6944 6167
53 74 77 5476 5878 5673
54 74 77 5476 5878 5673
55 74 77 5476 5878 5673
56 74 77 5476 5878 5673
57 74 77 5476 5878 5673
58 74 77 5476 5878 5673
59 74 77 5476 5878 5673
60 74 77 5476 5878 5673
61 74 77 5476 5878 5673
62 74 77 5476 5878 5673
63 72 77 5184 5878 5520
64 72 77 5184 5878 5520
65 72 77 5184 5878 5520
66 72 77 5184 5878 5520
67 72 77 5184 5878 5520
68 72 77 5184 5878 5520
69 72 77 5184 5878 5520
134
70 72 77 5184 5878 5520

71 72 77 5184 5878 5520
72 72 77 5184 5878 5520
73 72 77 5184 5878 5520
74 70 77 4900 5878 5367
75 70 77 4900 5878 5367
76 70 77 4900 5878 5367
77 70 77 4900 5878 5367
78 70 77 4900 5878 5367
79 70 77 4900 5878 5367
80 70 77 4900 5878 5367
81 70 77 4900 5878 5367
82 70 77 4900 5878 5367
83 70 77 4900 5878 5367
84 68 77 4624 5878 5213
85 68 77 4624 5878 5213
86 68 77 4624 5878 5213
87 68 77 4624 5878 5213
88 68 77 4624 5878 5213
89 68 70 4624 4900 4760
90 68 70 4624 4900 4760
91 68 70 4624 4900 4760
92 68 70 4624 4900 4760
93 68 70 4624 4900 4760
94 68 70 4624 4900 4760
95 66 70 4356 4900 4620
96 66 70 4356 4900 4620
97 66 70 4356 4900 4620
135
98 66 70 4356 4900 4620

99 64 70 4096 4900 4480
100 64 70 4096 4900 4480
101 64 70 4096 4900 4480
102 64 70 4096 4900 4480
103 64 70 4096 4900 4480
104 62 70 3844 4900 4340
105 62 70 3844 4900 4340
106 62 70 3844 4900 4340
107 62 70 3844 4900 4340
108 60 63 3600 4011 3800
109 58 63 3364 4011 3673
110 58 63 3364 4011 3673
TOTAL 8066 8666.67 596012 687088.9 639540
MEAN 73.33 78.79 5418.29 6246.26 5814
Mean 73.327273 78.7878788

Variance 41.781818 39.088129
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
136
df 109
Tabular t-
Appendix S - Correlation between Quantitative Reasoning and Life-

X Y X2 Y2 XY
Life
Quantitative Threatening
1 90 75 8100 5625 6750
2 90 75 8100 5625 6750
3 88 75 7744 5625 6600
137
4 88 75 7744 5625 6600

5 88 75 7744 5625 6600
6 88 75 7744 5625 6600
7 88 75 7744 5625 6600
8 86 75 7396 5625 6450
9 86 75 7396 5625 6450
10 86 75 7396 5625 6450
11 86 75 7396 5625 6450
12 86 75 7396 5625 6450
13 86 75 7396 5625 6450
14 86 75 7396 5625 6450
15 86 75 7396 5625 6450
16 84 75 7056 5625 6300
17 84 75 7056 5625 6300
18 84 75 7056 5625 6300
19 84 75 7056 5625 6300
20 84 75 7056 5625 6300
21 84 75 7056 5625 6300
22 84 75 7056 5625 6300
23 84 75 7056 5625 6300
24 84 75 7056 5625 6300
25 84 75 7056 5625 6300
26 84 75 7056 5625 6300
27 84 75 7056 5625 6300
28 82 75 6724 5625 6150
29 82 75 6724 5625 6150
30 82 75 6724 5625 6150
31 82 75 6724 5625 6150
138
32 82 75 6724 5625 6150

33 82 75 6724 5625 6150
34 82 75 6724 5625 6150
35 82 75 6724 5625 6150
36 82 75 6724 5625 6150
37 82 75 6724 5625 6150
38 82 75 6724 5625 6150
39 82 75 6724 5625 6150
40 82 75 6724 5625 6150
41 82 75 6724 5625 6150
42 82 75 6724 5625 6150
43 80 75 6400 5625 6000
44 80 75 6400 5625 6000
45 80 75 6400 5625 6000
46 80 75 6400 5625 6000
47 80 75 6400 5625 6000
48 80 75 6400 5625 6000
49 80 75 6400 5625 6000
50 80 75 6400 5625 6000
51 80 75 6400 5625 6000
52 80 75 6400 5625 6000
53 80 75 6400 5625 6000
54 80 75 6400 5625 6000
55 80 75 6400 5625 6000
56 78 75 6084 5625 5850
57 78 75 6084 5625 5850
58 78 75 6084 5625 5850
59 78 75 6084 5625 5850
139
60 78 75 6084 5625 5850

61 78 75 6084 5625 5850
62 78 75 6084 5625 5850
63 78 75 6084 5625 5850
64 78 75 6084 5625 5850
65 78 75 6084 5625 5850
66 78 58 6084 3403 4550
67 78 58 6084 3403 4550
68 78 58 6084 3403 4550
69 78 58 6084 3403 4550
70 78 58 6084 3403 4550
71 78 58 6084 3403 4550
72 76 58 5776 3403 4433
73 76 58 5776 3403 4433
74 76 58 5776 3403 4433
75 74 58 5476 3403 4317
76 74 58 5476 3403 4317
77 74 58 5476 3403 4317
78 74 58 5476 3403 4317
79 74 58 5476 3403 4317
80 74 58 5476 3403 4317
81 74 58 5476 3403 4317
82 74 58 5476 3403 4317
83 74 58 5476 3403 4317
84 74 58 5476 3403 4317
85 72 58 5184 3403 4200
86 72 58 5184 3403 4200
87 72 58 5184 3403 4200
140
88 72 58 5184 3403 4200

89 72 58 5184 3403 4200
90 72 58 5184 3403 4200
91 70 58 4900 3403 4083
92 70 58 4900 3403 4083
93 70 58 4900 3403 4083
94 70 58 4900 3403 4083
95 68 58 4624 3403 3967
96 68 58 4624 3403 3967
97 66 58 4356 3403 3850
98 66 58 4356 3403 3850
99 64 58 4096 3403 3733
100 64 58 4096 3403 3733
101 64 58 4096 3403 3733
102 62 58 3844 3403 3617
103 62 58 3844 3403 3617
104 62 58 3844 3403 3617
105 62 58 3844 3403 3617
106 60 58 3600 3403 3500
107 58 58 3364 3403 3383
108 58 58 3364 3403 3383
109 58 58 3364 3403 3383
110 58 58 3364 3403 3383
TOTAL 8514 7500 665636 518750 586083
MEAN 77.4 68.18 6051.24 4715.91 5328.03
141
Mean 77.4 68.1818182

Variance 61.031193 67.764804
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 109
Tabular -
142
Appendix T - Correlation between Quantitative Reasoning and

Physical Trauma among the Grade Nine Learners of the College of
X Y X2 Y2 XY
Quantitative Physical
1 90 91 8100 8264 8182
2 90 91 8100 8264 8182
3 88 91 7744 8264 8000
4 88 91 7744 8264 8000
5 88 91 7744 8264 8000
6 88 91 7744 8264 8000
7 88 91 7744 8264 8000
8 86 91 7396 8264 7818
9 86 91 7396 8264 7818
10 86 91 7396 8264 7818
11 86 91 7396 8264 7818
12 86 91 7396 8264 7818
13 86 91 7396 8264 7818
14 86 91 7396 8264 7818
15 86 91 7396 8264 7818
16 84 91 7056 8264 7636
17 84 91 7056 8264 7636
18 84 91 7056 8264 7636
19 84 91 7056 8264 7636
20 84 91 7056 8264 7636
21 84 91 7056 8264 7636
22 84 91 7056 8264 7636
143
23 84 91 7056 8264 7636

24 84 82 7056 6694 6873
25 84 82 7056 6694 6873
26 84 82 7056 6694 6873
27 84 82 7056 6694 6873
28 82 82 6724 6694 6709
29 82 82 6724 6694 6709
30 82 82 6724 6694 6709
31 82 82 6724 6694 6709
32 82 82 6724 6694 6709
33 82 82 6724 6694 6709
34 82 82 6724 6694 6709
35 82 82 6724 6694 6709
36 82 82 6724 6694 6709
37 82 82 6724 6694 6709
38 82 82 6724 6694 6709
39 82 82 6724 6694 6709
40 82 82 6724 6694 6709
41 82 82 6724 6694 6709
42 82 82 6724 6694 6709
43 80 82 6400 6694 6545
44 80 82 6400 6694 6545
45 80 82 6400 6694 6545
46 80 82 6400 6694 6545
47 80 82 6400 6694 6545
48 80 82 6400 6694 6545
49 80 82 6400 6694 6545
50 80 82 6400 6694 6545
144
51 80 82 6400 6694 6545

52 80 82 6400 6694 6545
53 80 82 6400 6694 6545
54 80 82 6400 6694 6545
55 80 82 6400 6694 6545
56 78 82 6084 6694 6382
57 78 82 6084 6694 6382
58 78 82 6084 6694 6382
59 78 82 6084 6694 6382
60 78 82 6084 6694 6382
61 78 82 6084 6694 6382
62 78 82 6084 6694 6382
63 78 82 6084 6694 6382
64 78 82 6084 6694 6382
65 78 82 6084 6694 6382
66 78 82 6084 6694 6382
67 78 82 6084 6694 6382
68 78 82 6084 6694 6382
69 78 82 6084 6694 6382
70 78 73 6084 5289 5673
71 78 73 6084 5289 5673
72 76 73 5776 5289 5527
73 76 73 5776 5289 5527
74 76 73 5776 5289 5527
75 74 73 5476 5289 5382
76 74 73 5476 5289 5382
77 74 73 5476 5289 5382
78 74 73 5476 5289 5382
145
79 74 73 5476 5289 5382

80 74 73 5476 5289 5382
81 74 73 5476 5289 5382
82 74 73 5476 5289 5382
83 74 73 5476 5289 5382
84 74 73 5476 5289 5382
85 72 73 5184 5289 5236
86 72 73 5184 5289 5236
87 72 73 5184 5289 5236
88 72 73 5184 5289 5236
89 72 73 5184 5289 5236
90 72 73 5184 5289 5236
91 70 73 4900 5289 5091
92 70 73 4900 5289 5091
93 70 73 4900 5289 5091
94 70 73 4900 5289 5091
95 68 73 4624 5289 4945
96 68 73 4624 5289 4945
97 66 73 4356 5289 4800
98 66 73 4356 5289 4800
99 64 73 4096 5289 4655
100 64 73 4096 5289 4655
101 64 73 4096 5289 4655
102 62 73 3844 5289 4509
103 62 73 3844 5289 4509
104 62 73 3844 5289 4509
105 62 64 3844 4050 3945
106 60 64 3600 4050 3818
146
107 58 64 3364 4050 3691

108 58 64 3364 4050 3691
109 58 64 3364 4050 3691
110 58 64 3364 4050 3691
TOTAL 8514 8781.82 665636 707438 685600
MEAN 77.4 79.83 6051.24 6431.25 6232.73
Mean 77.4 79.8347107

Variance 61.031193 58.2027723
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 109
Tabular t-
147
Appendix U - Correlation between Quantitative Reasoning and Harm

X Y X2 Y2 XY
Harm
Quantitative Avoidance
1 90 91 8100 8264 8182
2 90 91 8100 8264 8182
3 88 91 7744 8264 8000
4 88 91 7744 8264 8000
5 88 91 7744 8264 8000
6 88 91 7744 8264 8000
7 88 91 7744 8264 8000
8 86 91 7396 8264 7818
9 86 91 7396 8264 7818
10 86 91 7396 8264 7818
11 86 91 7396 8264 7818
12 86 91 7396 8264 7818
13 86 91 7396 8264 7818
148
14 86 91 7396 8264 7818

15 86 91 7396 8264 7818
16 84 91 7056 8264 7636
17 84 91 7056 8264 7636
18 84 91 7056 8264 7636
19 84 91 7056 8264 7636
20 84 91 7056 8264 7636
21 84 91 7056 8264 7636
22 84 91 7056 8264 7636
23 84 82 7056 6694 6873
24 84 82 7056 6694 6873
25 84 82 7056 6694 6873
26 84 82 7056 6694 6873
27 84 82 7056 6694 6873
28 82 82 6724 6694 6709
29 82 82 6724 6694 6709
30 82 82 6724 6694 6709
31 82 82 6724 6694 6709
32 82 82 6724 6694 6709
33 82 82 6724 6694 6709
34 82 82 6724 6694 6709
35 82 82 6724 6694 6709
36 82 82 6724 6694 6709
37 82 82 6724 6694 6709
38 82 82 6724 6694 6709
39 82 82 6724 6694 6709
40 82 82 6724 6694 6709
41 82 82 6724 6694 6709
149
42 82 82 6724 6694 6709

43 80 82 6400 6694 6545
44 80 82 6400 6694 6545
45 80 82 6400 6694 6545
46 80 82 6400 6694 6545
47 80 82 6400 6694 6545
48 80 82 6400 6694 6545
49 80 82 6400 6694 6545
50 80 82 6400 6694 6545
51 80 82 6400 6694 6545
52 80 82 6400 6694 6545
53 80 82 6400 6694 6545
54 80 82 6400 6694 6545
55 80 82 6400 6694 6545
56 78 82 6084 6694 6382
57 78 82 6084 6694 6382
58 78 82 6084 6694 6382
59 78 82 6084 6694 6382
60 78 82 6084 6694 6382
61 78 82 6084 6694 6382
62 78 82 6084 6694 6382
63 78 82 6084 6694 6382
64 78 82 6084 6694 6382
65 78 73 6084 5289 5673
66 78 73 6084 5289 5673
67 78 73 6084 5289 5673
68 78 73 6084 5289 5673
69 78 73 6084 5289 5673
150
70 78 73 6084 5289 5673

71 78 73 6084 5289 5673
72 76 73 5776 5289 5527
73 76 73 5776 5289 5527
74 76 73 5776 5289 5527
75 74 73 5476 5289 5382
76 74 73 5476 5289 5382
77 74 73 5476 5289 5382
78 74 73 5476 5289 5382
79 74 73 5476 5289 5382
80 74 73 5476 5289 5382
81 74 73 5476 5289 5382
82 74 73 5476 5289 5382
83 74 73 5476 5289 5382
84 74 73 5476 5289 5382
85 72 73 5184 5289 5236
86 72 73 5184 5289 5236
87 72 73 5184 5289 5236
88 72 73 5184 5289 5236
89 72 73 5184 5289 5236
90 72 73 5184 5289 5236
91 70 73 4900 5289 5091
92 70 73 4900 5289 5091
93 70 73 4900 5289 5091
94 70 73 4900 5289 5091
95 68 64 4624 4050 4327
96 68 64 4624 4050 4327
97 66 64 4356 4050 4200
151
98 66 64 4356 4050 4200

99 64 64 4096 4050 4073
100 64 64 4096 4050 4073
101 64 64 4096 4050 4073
102 62 64 3844 4050 3945
103 62 64 3844 4050 3945
104 62 64 3844 4050 3945
105 62 64 3844 4050 3945
106 60 64 3600 4050 3818
107 58 64 3364 4050 3691
108 58 64 3364 4050 3691
109 58 64 3364 4050 3691
110 58 64 3364 4050 3691
TOTAL 8514 8636.36 665636 686446.3 675418.18
MEAN 77.4 78.51 6051.24 6240.42 6140.17
Mean 77.4 78.5123967

Variance 61.031193 76.9236071
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
152
df 109
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0001978
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0003955
Tabular t-
Appendix V - Correlation between Quantitative Reasoning and

Emotional Trauma among the Grade Nine Learners of the College of
X Y X2 Y2 XY
Quantitative Emotional
1 90 90 8100 8100 8100
2 90 90 8100 8100 8100
3 88 90 7744 8100 7920
4 88 90 7744 8100 7920
5 88 90 7744 8100 7920
6 88 90 7744 8100 7920
153
7 88 90 7744 8100 7920

8 86 90 7396 8100 7740
9 86 83 7396 6944 7167
10 86 83 7396 6944 7167
11 86 83 7396 6944 7167
12 86 83 7396 6944 7167
13 86 83 7396 6944 7167
14 86 83 7396 6944 7167
15 86 83 7396 6944 7167
16 84 83 7056 6944 7000
17 84 83 7056 6944 7000
18 84 83 7056 6944 7000
19 84 83 7056 6944 7000
20 84 83 7056 6944 7000
21 84 83 7056 6944 7000
22 84 83 7056 6944 7000
23 84 83 7056 6944 7000
24 84 83 7056 6944 7000
25 84 83 7056 6944 7000
26 84 83 7056 6944 7000
27 84 83 7056 6944 7000
28 82 83 6724 6944 6833
29 82 83 6724 6944 6833
30 82 83 6724 6944 6833
31 82 83 6724 6944 6833
32 82 83 6724 6944 6833
33 82 83 6724 6944 6833
34 82 83 6724 6944 6833
154
35 82 83 6724 6944 6833

36 82 83 6724 6944 6833
37 82 83 6724 6944 6833
38 82 83 6724 6944 6833
39 82 83 6724 6944 6833
40 82 83 6724 6944 6833
41 82 83 6724 6944 6833
42 82 83 6724 6944 6833
43 80 83 6400 6944 6667
44 80 83 6400 6944 6667
45 80 83 6400 6944 6667
46 80 83 6400 6944 6667
47 80 83 6400 6944 6667
48 80 83 6400 6944 6667
49 80 83 6400 6944 6667
50 80 83 6400 6944 6667
51 80 83 6400 6944 6667
52 80 83 6400 6944 6667
53 80 77 6400 5878 6133
54 80 77 6400 5878 6133
55 80 77 6400 5878 6133
56 78 77 6084 5878 5980
57 78 77 6084 5878 5980
58 78 77 6084 5878 5980
59 78 77 6084 5878 5980
60 78 77 6084 5878 5980
61 78 77 6084 5878 5980
62 78 77 6084 5878 5980
155
63 78 77 6084 5878 5980

64 78 77 6084 5878 5980
65 78 77 6084 5878 5980
66 78 77 6084 5878 5980
67 78 77 6084 5878 5980
68 78 77 6084 5878 5980
69 78 77 6084 5878 5980
70 78 77 6084 5878 5980
71 78 77 6084 5878 5980
72 76 77 5776 5878 5827
73 76 77 5776 5878 5827
74 76 77 5776 5878 5827
75 74 77 5476 5878 5673
76 74 77 5476 5878 5673
77 74 77 5476 5878 5673
78 74 77 5476 5878 5673
79 74 77 5476 5878 5673
80 74 77 5476 5878 5673
81 74 77 5476 5878 5673
82 74 77 5476 5878 5673
83 74 77 5476 5878 5673
84 74 77 5476 5878 5673
85 72 77 5184 5878 5520
86 72 77 5184 5878 5520
87 72 77 5184 5878 5520
88 72 77 5184 5878 5520
89 72 70 5184 4900 5040
90 72 70 5184 4900 5040
156
91 70 70 4900 4900 4900

92 70 70 4900 4900 4900
93 70 70 4900 4900 4900
94 70 70 4900 4900 4900
95 68 70 4624 4900 4760
96 68 70 4624 4900 4760
97 66 70 4356 4900 4620
98 66 70 4356 4900 4620
99 64 70 4096 4900 4480
100 64 70 4096 4900 4480
101 64 70 4096 4900 4480
102 62 70 3844 4900 4340
103 62 70 3844 4900 4340
104 62 70 3844 4900 4340
105 62 70 3844 4900 4340
106 60 70 3600 4900 4200
107 58 70 3364 4900 4060
108 58 63 3364 4011 3673
109 58 63 3364 4011 3673
110 58 63 3364 4011 3673
TOTAL 8514 8666.67 665636 687088.9 675766.67
MEAN 77.4 78.79 6051.24 6246.26 6143.33

157
Mean 77.4 78.7878788

Variance 61.031193 39.088129
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 109
Tabular t-

Ten Thesis

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ten Thesis

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1

COLLEGE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT OF TARLAC

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Failure is conceptualized as the motive to avoid failure in evaluative

situations, associated with anticipatory shame and with the tendency to

appraise threat. Sport represents a significant achievement and evaluative

Research findings provide corroboration of the prevalence of problems

attributed to high fear of failure among athletes in achievement settings,

making it an imperative issue that cannot be overlooked. Consequentially,

specific directions for future research regarding fear of failure constructs in

sport are presented.

Fear of failure is an achievement motive disposition that predisposes

individuals to experience anxiety and apprehension, since individuals have

learned that failure is associated with aversive consequences Fear of

failure is conceptualized as the motive to avoid failure in evaluative

achievement contexts where failure is tangible In this evaluative situation,

where failure is possible, there is a tendency to appraise threat and shame.

Sport is a highly competitive domain, we’re concerns about performance

perceived it as a failure. Our main goal in this article review is to delineate

the nature and conceptualization of fear of failure, and to provide some

recommendations for future research on the fear of failure construct in the

In preparation for a grounded theory study exploring the fear of failure in

sport context, a literature search was conducted. Although systematic search

to undertake a systematic review of the literature, but to consider the

context in which future studies would be positioned. Therefore, this article

comprises a descriptive summary and integration of some of the research

surrounding fear of failure. Ethical approval was not required as no human

subjects were involved in the research.

The investigation comprised a literature review (carried out in 2015),

a detailed picture on the fear of failure construct evolution, specifically in

sport settings. We took a narrative approach which enabled us to

prevalent sources of stress in sport, the fear of failure.

is shame. According to Atkinson (1966), fear of failure is a "disposition to

avoid failure and/or a capacity for experiencing shame or humiliation as a

Background of the Study

approach avoidance conflict about academic pursuits, and measures

reflecting this conflict were administered. How do students’ conceptualize

the causes of their own academic successes and failures? Taking a

phenomenological approach, students identified the causes of their

performance immediately following return of a graded examination. We then

substantial number of students into meaningful conceptual clusters, and

confirmed those empirically derived clusters in a different sample of students

using confirmatory factor analysis. That analysis indicated that students’

descriptions of the causes of their outcomes were consistent with a

subsumed in one of two more general clusters—facilitating causes and

inhibiting causes—but many students explained their outcome by identifying

causes from both categories. At a practical level, measuring unitary causes

proved to be a reliable and valid way of assessing spontaneous thoughts

about what causes academic outcomes.

term was coined by American Psychologist and Philosopher W. James in 190.

Self-esteem is usually defined as a personal judgement of worth living along

self-esteem functions as a trait that is not stable across time within

individuals. In psychology, self-esteem or self-worth includes a person’s

subjective appraisal of himself or herself as intrinsically positive or negative

to some degree that may become more positive or negative as a person

encounters successes or failures in daily life.

According to Abraham Maslow’s theory of needs, developed in 1943, all

ascending (order) hierarchy of priority. The basic assumption in Maslow’s

Respect from others entails recognition, acceptance, status, and

appreciation, and was believed to be more fragile and was believed to be

more fragile and easily lost than inner self-esteem.

cognitive theory. Bandura elucidated that self-efficacy beliefs influence the

directed life-long learners.