I.

Profile of the Respondents

1.1.Type of Respondents

Table 1 shows that all type of respondents has equal number of respondents, which made
up 20 frequencies or 33.3% per type.

Table 1 Frequency Distribution by Type of Respondents

Type of Respondent Frequency Percentage

Expert 20 33.3%
Faculty 20 33.3%
Student 20 33.3%
Total 60 100%

1.2.Age

Table 2 shows that most of the respondents’ ages from 16 to 20 years old, which made up
19 or 31.7% of the sample. The 14 or 23.3% of the respondents ages from 21 to 25 years old The
13 or 21.7% of the respondents ages from 26 to 30 years old. The 9 or 15% of the respondents
ages are 36 years old and above. Lastly, the 5 or 8.3% of the of the respondents ages from 31 to
35 years old.

Table 2 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Age

Age Frequency Percentage

16 to 20 years old 19 31.7%
21 to 25 years old 14 23.3%
26 to 30 years old 13 21.7%
31 to 35 years old 5 8.3%
36 years old and above 9 15%
Total 60 100%
 1.3.Sex

Table 3 shows that most of the respondents are Female, which made up 39 or 65% of the
sample. While, the 21 or 35% of the respondents are Male.

Table 3 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Sex

Sex Frequency Percentage

Female 39 65%
Male 21 35%
Total 60 100%

1.4. Civil Status

Table 4 shows that most of the respondents are Single, which made up 45 or 75% of the
respondents. While, 15 or 25% of the respondents are Married.

Table 4 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Civil Status

Civil Status Frequency Percentage

Married 15 25%
Single 45 75%
Total 60 100%
 1.5.Educational Attainment

Table 5 shows that most of the respondents are College Undergraduate, which made up 30
or 50% of the sample. The 17 or 28.3% of the respondents are College Graduate. The 10 or 16.7%
of the respondents are Master’s Degree level. Lastly, 3 or 5% of the respondents are Doctor Degree
level.

Table 5 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Educational Attainment

Educational Attainment Frequency Percentage

College Undergraduate 30 50%
College Graduate 17 28.3%
Master Degree 10 16.7%
Doctors Degree 3 5%
Total 60 100%
2. How do the respondents assess the quality characteristics of Seagrapes pandan Frappe in
terms of:

Point of Scale
Range Verbal Interpretation
1.00 – 1.79 Poor
1.80 – 2.59 Fair
2.60 – 3.39 Good
3.40 – 4.19 Very Good
4.20 – 5.00 Excellent

Very
Quality Excellent Good Fair Poor Weighted Verbal
Good
Characteristics Mean Interpretation
5 4 3 2 1
2.1. Taste 20 24 13 2 1 4.00 Very Good
2.2. Appearance 18 23 17 2 0 3.95 Very Good
2.3 Temperature 14 22 21 1 2 3.75 Very Good
2.4 Aroma 33 17 6 2 2 4.28 Excellent
2.5 Mouth Feel 23 26 9 2 0 4.17 Very Good

Table above shows the assessment of the respondents in terms of Quality Characteristics
of Seagrapes Pandan Frappe.
In terms of Taste, the respondents assess the taste of Seagrapes Pandan Frappe as “Very
Good” with weighted mean of 4.00.
In terms of Appearance, the respondents assess the appearance of Seagrapes Pandan Frappe
as “Very Good” with weighted mean of 3.95.
In terms of Temperature, the respondents assess the temperature of Seagrapes Pandan
Frappe as “Very Good” with weighted mean of 3.75.
In terms of Aroma, the respondents assess the aroma of Seagrapes Pandan Frappe as
“Excellent” with weighted mean of 4.28.
In terms of Mouth Feel, the respondents assess the mouth feel of Seagrapes Pandan Frappe
as “Very Good” with weighted mean of 4.17.
3. Is there a significant difference on the assessment of the 3 groups of respondents on the
quality characteristics of Seagrapes pandan Frappe?

Table 6 shows the Analysis of Variance in terms of Quality Characteristics of Seagrapes

Pandan Frappe. In this table, if the p-value is less than or equal to the α-level (0.05), one or more
means are significantly different. However, if the p-value is larger than the α-level (0.05), the
means are not significantly different.

Since the p-value of a) QC Taste (0.795), b) QC Appearance (0.765), c) QC Temperature

(0.686), d) QC Aroma (0.161), and e) QC Mouth Feel (0.732), are all greater than α-level (0.05),
therefore, the researcher concluded that there is no significant difference between the assessment
of the 3 types of respondents in terms of Quality Characteristics of Seagrapes Pandan Frappe.

Table 6 Analysis of Variance in terms of Quality Characteristics

4. How do the respondents assess the level of acceptability of Seagrapes pandan Frappe?

Point of Scale
Range Verbal Interpretation
1.00 – 1.79 Not Acceptable
1.80 – 2.59 Least Acceptable
2.60 – 3.39 Moderately Acceptable
3.40 – 4.19 Acceptable
4.20 – 5.00 Highly Acceptable

Very
Level of Excellent Good Fair Poor Weighted Verbal
Good
Acceptability Mean Interpretation
5 4 3 2 1
4.1. Taste 23 29 8 0 0 4.25 Highly Acceptable
4.2. Appearance 23 28 9 0 0 4.23 Highly Acceptable
4.3 Temperature 20 18 22 0 0 3.97 Acceptable
4.4 Aroma 34 19 7 0 0 4.45 Highly Acceptable
4.5 Mouth Feel 27 27 6 0 0 4.35 Highly Acceptable

Table above shows the assessment of the respondents in terms of Level of Acceptability of
Seagrapes Pandan Frappe.
In terms of Taste, the respondents’ level of acceptability for the taste of Seagrapes Pandan
Frappe is “Highly Acceptable” with weighted mean of 4.25.
In terms of Appearance, the respondents’ level of acceptability for the appearance of
Seagrapes Pandan Frappe is “Highly Acceptable” with weighted mean of 4.23.
In terms of Temperature, the respondents’ level of acceptability for the temperature of
Seagrapes Pandan Frappe is “Acceptable” with weighted mean of 3.97.
In terms of Aroma, the respondents’ level of acceptability for the aroma of Seagrapes
Pandan Frappe is “Highly Acceptable” with weighted mean of 4.45.
In terms of Mouth Feel, the respondents’ level of acceptability for the mouth feel of
Seagrapes Pandan Frappe is “Highly Acceptable” with weighted mean of 4.35.
5. Is there a significant difference on the assessment of 3 groups of respondents on the level
of acceptability of Seagrapes pandan Frappe?

Table 7 shows the Analysis of Variance in terms of the Level of Acceptability of Seagrapes
Pandan Frappe. In this table, if the p-value is less than or equal to the α-level (0.05), one or more
means are significantly different. However, if the p-value is larger than the α-level (0.05), the
means are not significantly different.

Since the p-value of a) LoA Taste (0.729), b) LoA Appearance (0.876), c) LoA
Temperature (0.744), d) LoA Aroma (0.906), and e) LoA Mouth Feel (0.895), are all greater than
α-level (0.05), therefore, the researcher concluded that there is no significant difference between
the assessment of the 3 types of respondents in terms of Level of Acceptability of Seagrapes
Pandan Frappe.

Table 7 Analysis of Variance in terms of Level of Acceptability