User talk:Dr. fernando t. omadto

In response to your feedback

My page for new users here may help. You must add a {{reflist}} and the references will appear.

SwisterTwister talk 02:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

 

Speedy deletion nomination of Article DR. FERNANDO TUGAY OMADTO

A tag has been placed on Article DR. FERNANDO TUGAY OMADTO, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 05:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Article DR. FERNANDO TUGAY OMADTO

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Article DR. FERNANDO TUGAY OMADTO, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Article DR. FERNANDO TUGAY OMADTO for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Article DR. FERNANDO TUGAY OMADTO is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article DR. FERNANDO TUGAY OMADTO until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 10:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Guide for Evaluating Research Report: Quezon City Polytechnic University Version

A Comprehensive Guide for Evaluating Research Reports by:FERNANDO TUGAY OMADTO, Ph.D.

This is the first edition of a comprehensive guide for evaluating research proposals and reports. It is presently being reviewed for further revisions to make it more comprehensive and useful especially for beginning researchers. Comments and suggestions maybe sent to the author at the Research and Extension Office, Quezon City Polytechnic University, San Bartolome Campus, Novaliches Quezon City.

The evaluation criteria are divided into the following sections: preliminary components; introductory sections; problem formulation; utilitarian orientation; theoretical and conceptual frameworks; data instruments and collection methods; sampling design; research design; basic research procedures; and data organization; statistical analysis and statistics; research findings and discussions with interpretations; conclusion; implications and recommendations. The guidelines consisted of specific questions based on the basic components of research proposals and reports. These components were scrutinized for the major dimensions and in some instances, critical importance. Each dimension is translated into specific questions answerable by a “yes” or a “no”. A “yes” answer generally indicates conformity of the item being evaluated with standards considered acceptable by leading research authorities in social-behavioral sciences. More “yes” answers suggest greater acceptability of the research proposal, indicating that the practicing researcher have done a pretty good job. Nevertheless, it is still being strongly recommended that the researcher examine critically the output to further elevate its quality to a desirably higher level.

On the other hand, more “no” answers require even more immediate and urgent examination. This means that the proponent have to work much more incorporate much-needed constructive action, guided by those items with negative responses.

Evaluating Preliminary Concepts

TOPIC Guide Question 1.Does the proposal explicitly identify the research topic? 2. Does the topic clearly focus on a particular knowledge area? 3.Does it suggest an important substantive issue in specific discipline? 4.Does the topic have an adequate knowledge base in the literature? 5.On the whole, does the topic build on the results of previous research studies?

TITLE Guide Question 6.Does the title create sufficient interest in the study? 7.Is it of reasonable length? 8.Does it convey the study’s major thrust? 9.Does it point to the population of the study? 10.Does it indicate the study’s venue or locale? 11.On the whole, does it tell the audience the basic content of the study?

Evaluating the Introductory Sections

INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Guide Question 12.Does the introduction highlight the basic issue(s)/problem(s) of the study? 13.Does it clearly focus on the core issues/problems? 14.Does it highlight the consensus in the literature on these issues/problems? 15.Does it use a particular theoretical orientation for examining the issues? 16.On the whole, does the introduction and background of the study provide a holistic view of the study?

Evaluating the Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Guide Question 17.Does the proposal have a basic or major theoretical frameworks or orientations? 18.Does it briefly describe the theory or set of theories comprising this framework? 19.Is the framework the most appropriate for the study? 20.Are there deductions from the theory/theories that are applied to the study? 21. Are the deductions logical? 22. On the whole, does the theoretical framework give a solid foundation for the conduct of the study?

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Guide Question 23.Does the proposal provide a concise conceptual framework for the study? 24. Does the framework identify the basic concepts in the study? 25. Does it clearly show the relationships between these concepts? 26. Is the conceptual framework clearly linked to the theoretical framework? 27.On the whole, does the conceptual framework summarize the basic conceptual thrust of the study?

Evaluating the Problem Formulation

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Guide Question 28.Does the problem have a brief prefatory descriptive background? 29.Does the statement of the problem summary clearly suggest the type of the study? 30.Does it clearly state the major issue(s)/problem(s) to be studied? 31.Are the specific statements stated in interrogative form? 32.Are they stated in empirical terms (researchability criterion)? 33.Are they stated concisely (brevity criterion)? 34.Are they clearly stated( clarity criterion)? 35.Are they stated according to importance (hierarchical order criterion) ? 36.Are they stated to apply to other population (external validity criterion)? 37.Do the questions specify the questions specify the variables in the study 38.Do they ask the relationship between these variables? 39.On the whole, does the problem statement clearly indicate the focus of the study?

HYPOTHESES

Guide Question 40.Does the proposal enumerate the hypotheses of the study? 41.Are the hypotheses the most logical answers to the questions raised? 42.Are they stated in declarative form? 43. Are they stated in clearly testable form? 44. Do they specifically state predictive relationship? 45. Are they consistent with known theories and facts? 46. Do they suggest the population of the study? 47. Do they specify the groups to be compared? 48. Do they suggest the data to be collected? 49. On the whole, do the hypotheses provide a preview of the study’s expected results?

Evaluating the Utilitarian Orientation

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Guide Question 50.Does the proposal indicate the study’s major contribution to knowledge? 51.Does it specify the specific benefits to be gained? 52.Are the benefits theory-oriented? 53.Are they research methodology-oriented? 54.Are they research technology-oriented ? 55.Are they policy-oriented? 56.Are they program/project/practice oriented? 57.Does it identify specific beneficiaries (e.g. institution, program, person, community, etc.)? 58.On the whole, does the study specify the benefits to be gained from the results of the study?

SCOPE AND DELIMITATIONS Guide Question 59.Does the proposal clearly delimit the scope (boundaries) of the problem area? 60.Is the scope neither too broad nor too narrow? 61. Does it specify what to be included? 62. Can the study be completed within a reasonable time frame? 63. Does the proposal identify any limitations? 64. Does it effectively rationalize these limitations? 65. On the whole, is the delimited knowledge area reasonably acceptable for the study?

DEFINITION OF TERMS Guide Question 66. Does the proposal define all the variables/important terms in the study? 67. Are the definitions based on the reviewed literature? 68. Are all the variables defined theoretically, constitutively, nominally, and operationally? 69. Are they clearly defined in terms of the instruments for measuring them? 70. Are they clearly defined in terms of proposed respective measures or indicators? 71. On the whole, do the definitions clearly specify the meanings of the variables?

Evaluating the Review of Related Literature RELATED LITERATURE/STUDIES Guide Question 72.Does the review of literature adequately cover the important researches conducted on the topic/problem? 73. Does the review clearly demonstrate comprehensiveness of knowledge? 74. Does it show familiarity with the classics in the particular discipline? 75. Does it compare the findings as they relate to the present study? 70. Does it contrast the same findings? 71. Does the review make critical analysis of the reviewed studies? 72. Does it synthesize the major agreements of different research findings? 73. Does it use results of empirical studies rather than opinionated analyses? 74.Is the review up-to-date and logically organized (e.g. by topics and not by authors)? 75. On the whole, does the review provide a comprehensive background of the study?

Evaluating Research Designs and Methodology

RESEARCH DESIGNS Guide Question 76. Does the proposal adequately describe the research design for the study? 77. Is the choice of research design the most logical for testing the hypotheses of the study? 78. Are procedures clearly described for this purpose? 79. On the whole, are the procedures clearly described for the benefit of other researchers who may want to replicate the study?

INSTRUMENTATION Guide Question 80. Does the proposal plan to use a questionnaire to collect data for the study? 81. Does it clearly describe procedures for its development? 82. Does it clearly describe procedures for determining validity? 83. Does it clearly describe procedures for pre-testing t? 84. Are the response options for each item clearly comprehensive and exclusive? 85. On the whole, is the questionnaire the most appropriate means to collect data?

DATA GATHERING PROCEDURES

Guide Question 86. Does the proposal adequately describe the procedures for conducting the study? 87. Do the procedures ensure the validity and reliability of research results? 88. Does the proposal conform to research ethical standards for the conduct of research? 89. Does the description of the procedures permit the replication of the study by other interested researcher? 90. On the whole, do the research procedures eliminate serious possible biases arising from them?

STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF DATA

Guide Question 91. Does the proposal have a section describing the statistical analysis of data? 92.Does it identify the specific statistical tool to be used for each problem? 93. On the whole, are they appropriate for the problems and hypothesis?

Evaluating Research Findings and Interpretations

RESEARCH FINDINGS

Guide Question 94. Does the report enumerate the findings/result of the study? 95. Are the findings reported clearly, logically and systematically? 96. Are they based on the statement of the problem? 97. Are tables used to summarize the results of the study? 98. Are they labeled appropriately? 99. On the whole, do the findings support the major contention of the study?

DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATIONS

Guide Question 100. Do the discussion and interpretation logically follow from the results of the study? 101. Are they related to the research questions? 102. Are they related to hypothesis if any? 103. Do the discussion synthesize results supportive to the theories that motivated the study? 104. Do discussions consider the probable factors/effects on the results of the study? 105. On the whole, are discussions free from any recognizable biases?

Evaluating Conclusion, implications and Recommendations

CONCLUSIONS

Guide Question 106. Does the conclusion logically follow from the major findings of the study? 107. Is the conclusion based on the synthesis of the major findings of the study? 108. Does it provide definitive answer to the problems raised? 109. Does it synthesize the results of tests of hypotheses? 110. On the whole, is the conclusion reasonable in light of the study?

IMPLICATIONS

Guide Question 111. Does the report present the most important implications of the results of the study? 112.Does it synthesize the results of the tests of hypotheses? 113. On the whole, are the implications logically deduced from the results of the study?

RECOMMENDATIONS

Guide Question 114. Does the report provide recommendations arising from the results of the study? 115. Are the recommendations directed to policy issues raised by the study? 116. Are the recommendations specific, measurable, attainable, reasonable, and time bounded? 116. On the whole, do recommendations extend the coverage of the knowledge area arising from the results of the study?