Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research design that identifies the four variables used,
states the null hypotheses, and describes the participants and instrument used to collect
data. It also describes the data-collection and data-analysis procedures and concludes
involved in this study.
Research Design
The research design for this study is a correlation/regression cross-sectional
design. It will employ a 360-degree peer evaluation to gather data for the criterion
variable. The study is focused on the relationship between the criterion and three
predictor variables. A correlation/regression design will be used because the predictor
variables do not lend themselves to experimental manipulation.
Criterion and Predictor Variables
The degree of relationship between any two variables is the extent to which they
vary in a systemic manner. A correlation/regression analysis will be conducted on the
variables to determine the degree of relationship between the criterion variables and the
predictor variables. The predictor variables are (1) highest educational degree earned,
(2) PRC Board/Civil Service rating, and (3) years of experience. The criterion variables
are the scores of the 360-degree peer evaluation, which measures leadership and
performance competencies relevant to the fire service.
One hundred twenty (120) firefighters assigned in the 4th District of Laguna will
be participating in the 360-degree peer evaluation, which had 57 variables that
measured leadership and performance competencies for the Municipal Fire Marshal
and BFP personnel, and were ranked on a scale of 1 to 5. Once the scores are
collected, a factor analysis will be conducted on the variables to reveal patterns of
interrelationship among variables and detect clusters of variables that inter-correlated
and redundant. Consequentially, all the scores of the variables will be totaled to reflect
the criterion variable, which is described as the 360-degree peer evaluation.
Null Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 Ho: ρ = 0 there will be no significant relationship between the educational
degree earned and the scores of the 360-degree peer evaluation of effective leadership
and performance competencies.

Hypothesis 2 Ho: ρ = 0 there will be no significant relationship between PRC Board/Civil

service Rating and the scores of the 360-degree peer evaluation.

Hypothesis 3 Ho: ρ = 0 there will be no significant relationship between the years of

experience and the scores of the 360-degree peer evaluation.
Hypothesis 4 Ho: ρ = 0 there will be no significant relationship between the criterion and
the set of all predictors. This null hypothesis could also be stated as: The values of the
regression weights are equal and all equal to zero.

The Participants
The participants are Municipal Fire Marshals and BFP Personnel assigned in the
4th District of Laguna. Verification of their ranks and designation will be documented in
official department records. Participants will be come from Fire Suppression and Fire
Prevention Divisions. About 40% (N= 120) of the firefighters in the province of Laguna
(N=300) are assigned in the 4th District. Permission to conduct the research on this
population group will be coordinated to the Provincial Director of BFP Laguna. The
criterion variable will be the score on the 360-degree peer evaluation that rated MFM’s
and BFP personnel. The surveys will be distributed to 120 participants, with an expected
response rate of about 100% (N=120).
The Instrument
In this study, the 360-degree peer evaluation will be used to provide feedback
regarding leadership and performance competencies relevant to the fire service. The
survey called for ratings performance from the full circle of personnel that included (1)
Municipal Fire Marshals, and (2) BFP personnel.
The 360-degree peer evaluation was created from two sources. The first source
was the Booth Research Group (1998), which conducted a job analysis that identified
five performance competencies relevant to the positions of Fire Marshal and Fire
officers. The second source of data was the Rogers’ Firefighters Survey (2001), which
surveyed 35 San Antonio firefighters who identified six leadership competencies
relevant to the fire service. A total of eleven leadership and performance competencies
were identified from the two sources; however, two of the competencies identified by the
Rogers’ Firefighters Survey (2001) overlapped with those identified by the Booth
Research Group (1998), yielding a net result of nine competencies to measure the
leadership and performance of Municipal Fire Marshals and BFP Personnel in the 4th
District of Laguna.
The 360-degree peer evaluation was based on nine leadership competencies
from which 57 rating questions were created. The competencies are (a) communication,
(b) teamwork, (c) ethical behavior, (d) general administration, (e) emergency scene
management, (f) personal development, (g) community interaction, (h) technical skill,
and (i) self-confidence. Communication was one of the competencies from which seven
rating questions were developed. Examples of how communication skills were rated
include observing how the leadership candidate: (1) conveys his or her thoughts
through speech and in writing, (2) exhibits knowledge of communication tactics and
techniques, and (3) listens and responds to verbal orders at the fire station and the fire
scene.
A rating scale will be used on the 360-degree feedback to measure the
leadership performance MFMs and BFP personnel. The scale ranges from 1 to 5,
representing the lowest to the highest ratings, respectively. For example, a rating of 5
reflects exceptional skills, meaning that the individual consistently exceeds expectations
of behavior and skills in this area. A rating of 1 reflects low skills; the individual
consistently fails to reach expectations of behavior and skills in this area. The results of
the 360-degree peer evaluation were used in correlational and regression analysis to
determine the relationship between the criterion and predictor variables.
The performance rating scales of the 360-degree peer evaluation were based on
questions relevant to the positions of MFMs and personnel in the fire service. There are
no data on the validity and reliability of this instrument; however, the 360-degree peer
evaluation was based on observation of behaviors and skills offering face and content
validity.
Data Collection
The instrument will be delivered to 120 participants at 16 fire stations in the
municipalities of 4th District of Laguna. Written and verbal instructions will be
administered to the participants. The estimated time expected for completion of the
survey was 20 minutes or less. Upon their completion, the surveys will be collected and
secured, ensuring the participants’ anonymity.
The criterion variable scores will be collected from the results of the survey. The
predictor variables included (a) the educational degree earned, (b) PRC Board/Civil
Service Rating, and (c) years of experience. The educational degree earned and PRC
Board/Civil Service Rating will be obtained from the 201 File of the respective fire
stations. The years of service and years of formal education will be gathered from the
Office of the Provincial Fire Marshal personnel database.
Data Analysis
The Pearson r statistical index will be used to describe the degree of strength
and direction of relationship between the criterion and predictive variables. Multiple
regressions also will be conducted to determine the ability of the predictor variables,
individually and together, to predict the criterion variable. The multiple regressions will
be evaluated in the usual manner using the F-test of significance (Agresti & Findlay,
1997).
The data collected from the surveys will be entered into the SPSS for analysis,
which consisted of correlation and regression analyses of the criterion and predictive
variables.
 Ethical Decisions
One of the ethical aspects of this study was the anonymity afforded the
participants, since the 360-degree peer evaluation involved performance ratings of
superiors by their subordinates as the case maybe. To ensure honest and accurate
answers, anonymity will be enforced by the use of numbers to identify the individual
being rated and his or her job performance rating. A separate confidential identification
sheet identified the names with their assigned number, but the sheet will be separated
from the 360-degree peer evaluation and will be available only to the researcher.