Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study examined the relationship between pupils’ involvement in school-initiated absenteeism interventions and their academic achievement in Araling Panlipunan in Kadingilan II District, Bukidnon (SY 2019–2020). A descriptive-correlational design was employed involving 101 Grade 4 pupils identified as at risk of dropping out. Data were collected using a validated questionnaire (CVI = 0.89; Cronbach’s α = 0.91) and analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent t-test, one-way ANOVA, and Pearson product–moment correlation. Respondents were predominantly male (65.3%), aged 10–11 years (61.4%), from low-income households (85.1% earning ₱1,000–₱10,999), with parents largely self-employed (92.1%) and with elementary education (80.2%). Pupils reported high involvement in interventions: close-door counseling (M = 4.06), home visits (M = 3.80), CFSS (M = 3.74), and school feeding (M = 4.03), while dormitory involvement was low (M = 1.47). Academic achievement was generally low, with 63% fairly satisfactory (75–79) and 36% satisfactory (80–84). No significant differences were observed across most demographic variables (p > .05), except for dormitory involvement by gender and income (p < .05). Correlation analysis showed no significant relationship between intervention involvement and academic achievement (r = -0.186 to 0.149, p > .05). Findings indicate that while interventions enhance participation, they do not directly predict academic outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sales et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: