This study evaluated the effectiveness of an improvised dual-powered eco-friendly dehydration device using a diverse group of evaluators, including students, faculty, TESDA experts, and industry experts/farmers. The device was assessed across six quality indicators: design and aesthetics, materials, portability, functionality, safety, and usability. The data was collected using four Likert evaluation checklists that were valid and reliable according to review and validation using Cronbach's Alpha, with a reliability coefficient of 0.95 and a verbal interpretation of "very reliable." Prior to evaluation, the responders were shown how the equipment operated and what its characteristics were. The overall assessment yielded an average mean of 3.78, interpreted as "Very Effective." This strong overall rating underscores the device's potential as a viable solution for sustainable food preservation, particularly in resource-limited settings. Individual categories also received high ratings, with usability scoring the highest at 3.87 ("Very Usable") and materials receiving the lowest at 3.74 ("Very Good"). The exceptional usability score highlights the intuitive design that facilitates ease of use even for non-experts, while the slightly lower materials rating points to areas for potential refinement in durability or sourcing. A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference in the assessments of materials (F=4.390, p=0.006) and safety (F=3.882, p=0.011) among the evaluator groups (alpha=0.05). These statistical findings indicate that evaluator expertise levels impacted perceptions of technical aspects, with varying expectations based on professional experience. The TESDA experts provided the lowest mean scores for both categories, suggesting that the evaluators' professional backgrounds influenced the technical assessment of these specific indicators.
Annie Capin (Tue,) studied this question.