You are on page 1of 12

5.

1 Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items

.916

21

The Cronbach alpha co-efficient is an indicator of internal consistency of the scale. A high value
of Cronbach alpha co-efficient suggest that the items that make the scale “Hang together” and
measure the same underlying construct. A value of cornbach alpha above 0.70 can be used as a
reasonable test of scale reliability. In over study the cronbach’s Alpha is 0.916 (>0.70) so the
scale is reliable and it means that one may expect to find the same result if the measurement is
repeated.
Table : 5.1 Item Statistics
Mean

Std. Deviation

N

Status of increase in income as being part of SHG

3.66

0.834

150

Improvement in savings

4.07

0.711

150

Level of undertaking income generating activities

3.1

0.833

150

Status of reduction of dependency on Money Lenders

3.33

0.755

150

Level of Reduction of Poverty in the Family

3.29

0.805

150

Participation in Decision of Savings

3.69

0.741

150

Participation in Decision of Expense

3.61

0.827

150

Participation in Decision of Child Education

3.24

0.88

150

Able to Deal with Financial Crisis of the Family

3.12

0.732

150

Level of Moving Independently

3.75

0.976

150

Status of Being Able to Express Views Freely

3.73

0.939

150

Ability to Discuss freely with Bank/Govt.Officers/NGOs & Others

3.71

0.98

150

Help Member to Protest against Liquor sales/ Alcoholic Use

3.21

0.782

150

Help Member to Protest Against Pollution

3.45

0.747

150

Help Member to Protest Against Drinking Water Problem

3.49

0.757

150

Help Member to Protest Against Dowry

2.99

0.835

150

Help Member to Protest Against Abuse of fellow group members by
Husband

3.11

0.636

150

Participation in Women’s Day

3.76

0.808

150

Participation in Child Labor Abolition

3.31

0.743

150

Participation in Gram Sabha Meeting

3.93

0.8

150

752 150 .35 0.Ability to cast votes Independently 4.

027576 3. N Economic Mean Deviation Std.748888 .0000 Banaskantha 50 4.798514 4.263871 4.7000 150 3.5103548 .0646851 3.7000 4.260424 2.0740228 3.0000 Patan 50 4.035411 4.5234205 .6689084 .0546161 4.0000 5.5181612 .823031 4. H1 : There is significant relation between District and Empowerment of Rural Women as a result of participation in Microfinance.0000 5.304444 .6197432 .537898 2.651338 3.5613666 .0000 150 4.5556 Sabarkantha 50 3.5355181 .1111 4.876000 .0458354 3.616129 3.7000 Sabarkantha 50 3.2000 4.5556 Patan 50 3.360762 3.005990 2.1111 4.143333 .3432468 .0876449 4.000000 .541905 2.181807 3.5000 5.5.176969 2.3333 Banaskantha 50 3.846438 3.1 Descriptive 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Std.5000 Patan 50 3.0000 Empowerment Total Social Empowerment Total Political Empowerment Total .2.164586 3.0485424 3.0880631 3. Table : 5.334000 .486193 2.4096589 .4573928 .157184 3.0000 4.251256 2.746010 4.990000 .4444 150 3.313340 .0732791 3.0757337 3.2000 4.373216 3.181486 2.0416703 3.1111 4.0000 5.0579345 3.6737801 .144000 .455557 .0952869 3.3000 Banaskantha 50 3.462094 2.2 ONEWAY ANOVA Empowerment and District H0 : There is no significant relation between District and Empowerment of Rural Women as a result of participation in Microfinance. Error Lower Upper Bound Bound Minimum Maximum Sabarkantha 50 3.451704 2.6226998 .451333 .2000 4.440000 .

Post Hoc Multiple Comparison Rejection of null hypothesis in ANOVA only tell us that all population means are not equal.955 149 6.354 147 . Multiple comparison are used to assess which group means differ from which others.665 . .214 Within Groups 32. so here we will reject the Null Hypothesis.2.000 8.809 149 Between Groups 14.428 2 7.668 149 Between Groups F Sig.228 Within Groups 32. 14.220 Total 38. once the overall F test tells us that at least one difference exists.2 ANOVA Mean Sum of Squares Economic Empowerment Social Empowerment Political Empowerment Between Groups df Square 6.455 2 3. So we can conclude that there is significant relation between District and Its Women Empowerment.000 Interpretation : The study reported that District and The Women Empowerment has significant relationship ( p < 0.065 147 .221 Total 46.Table : 5.527 147 .409 Total 66.603 .000 32.080 .05 ).302 Within Groups 60.603 2 3. That means the status of women empowerment in all three district is different.

6666 -0.213392 0.21339 -0.093828 0.21326 0.4444440* 0.412749 -. Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable Economic Empowerment (I) DISTRICT Sabarkantha (J) DISTRICT Patan 95% Confidence Interval Mean Difference (I-J) Std.3 Post Hoc Tests Table : 5.4500000* 0.000 0.093828 0.094079 0.111 -0.000 -0.4400000* 0.21326 -.6666 -0.7427 -0.19 0.127845 0.222288 0.995 -0.000 0.002 0.76475 -0.094079 0.5420000* 0. The mean difference is significant at the 0.742697 Upper Bound Banaskantha Patan Sabarkantha Banaskantha Banaskantha Sabarkantha Patan Social Empowerment Sabarkantha Patan Banaskantha Patan Sabarkantha Banaskantha Banaskantha Sabarkantha Patan Political Empowerment Sabarkantha Patan Banaskantha Patan Sabarkantha Banaskantha Banaskantha Sabarkantha Patan *.127845 0.319251 0.7527 -0.032749 -.19 0.127845 0.954749 * .094079 0.3127 0.231052 -.4400000* 0.000 0.093828 0.008896 0.01 0.127845 0.002 -0. .1473 0. Error Sig.03275 0.752697 .7320000* 0.5420000 0.137303 0.509251 0.093828 0.094079 0.0089 0.000 -0.127845 0.657704 * .093828 0.2927 0.000 -0.1373 .3.000 0.23105 0.5.4355480* 0.002 -0.094079 0.22229 .95475 -0.4355480* 0.6577 -0.997 -0.093828 0.147303 0.111 -0.4444440 0.50925 0.127845 0.05 level.4500000* 0.764749 -0.312697 -.002 0.41275 0.01 0. Lower Bound 0.995 -0.094079 0.292697 -.31925 .000 -0.997 -0.7320000* 0.

5.05 so there is no significant difference between Sabarkantha and Patan.995 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Where there is significant difference in economic empowerment of Sabarkantha and Banaskantha ( p < 0.31334 Sabarkantha Banaskantha 50 Sig.748888 0.05 1 . Sabarkantha and Patan is same as p > 0.1 Economic Empowerment Subset for alpha = 0. Economic Empowerment of Sabarkantha and Patan is same as p > 0. The results are shown in three rows.05 ) and there is significant difference between Patan and Banaskantha ( p < 0. As far as Social Empowerment is concerned .4 Homogeneous Subsets 5.05 so there is no significant difference between Sabarkantha and Patan.05 ). Where there is significant difference in Social empowerment of Sabarkantha and Banaskantha ( p < 0.Interpretation: Since we have three districts total of the six pairs will be possible in which three will be in mirror images. Where there is significant difference in Political empowerment of Sabarkantha and Banaskantha ( p < 0. DISTRICT 5.05 so there is no significant difference between Sabarkantha and Patan.2 Social Empowerment N Subset for alpha = 0.05 ) and there is significant difference between Patan and Banaskantha ( p < 0. Sabarkantha and Patan is same as p > 0.4. As far as Political Empowerment is concerned.05 ).304444 50 3.4.05 DISTRICT Patan N 1 2 50 3.05 ). 3.05 ) and there is significant difference between Patan and Banaskantha ( p < 0.

4. Political Empowerment : The districts are clubbed in homogenous subsets. Banashkantha with a mean of 3.3 Political Empowerment Subset for alpha = 0. Banashkantha with a mean of 3.997 1 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Banashkantha with a mean of 4. And Sabarkantha and Patan with means of 3. Where as they are different from Banaskantha.334 are put under subsets 1.99 50 4 Banaskantha 50 Sig.876 Sig.111 1 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Social Empowerment : The districts are clubbed in homogenous subsets.05 DISTRICT Sabarkantha Patan N 1 2 50 3.00 are put under subsets 1.313 are put under subsets 1. 0. And Sabarkantha and Patan with means of 3.334 Banaskantha 50 3. And Sabarkantha and Patan with means of 3. This means that district Sabarkantha and Patan are do not significantly .304 and 3.44 0. Where as they are different from Banaskantha.44 is put under subsets 2.876 is put under subsets 2.1 Sabarkantha Patan 2 50 3. This means that district Sabarkantha and Patan are do not significantly differ from each other and form homogenous subsets.99 and 4. This means that district Sabarkantha and Patan are do not significantly differ from each other and form homogenous subsets.144 and 3.144 50 3.748 is put under subsets 2. 4. 5. Interpretation : Economic Empowerment : The districts are clubbed in homogenous subsets.

090667 3.62698 2.3333 3.8 4.064149 3.36076 3.32547 3.56748 2.58599 2.283795 2. H1 : There is significant relation between Duration of Membership and Empowerment of Rural Women as a result of participation in Microfinance.33661 3.33488 2.47654 0.561367 0.5 4.045835 3.49723 0.056524 3.18741 4.70339 2.750851 0.04167 3.5556 13 3.055082 3.52 0.2 4.36109 2.585133 0.175721 2.522554 0.1111 4.37322 3.45556 0.97225 4.510355 0.2 4.405712 0.80185 3.1111 90 3.43778 0.6 3.66667 0. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimu m Maxim um 13 3.26973 2.1111 4.72857 0.36748 3.5556 4.536233 0.5556 7 15 0 3.441036 0.5 40 3.3671 3.2 4.1111 4.6 7 15 0 3. 5.7 Less than Year 1-3 Year 3-6 Year More than 6 Year Total Social Empowerment Less than Year 1-3 Year 3-6 Year More than 6 Year Total .573429 0.80175 3.5379 2. 5.differ from each other and form homogenous subsets.5.06837 0.18462 0.122321 2. Deviation Std.45133 0.22116 3.54191 2.3333 4 40 3.1 Descriptive 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Economic Empowerment N Mean Std. Where as they are different from Banaskantha.55009 2.5 ONEWAY ANOVA Empowerment & Duration of Membership H0 : There is no significant relation between Duration of Membership and Empowerment of Rural Women as a result of participation in Microfinance.63357 0.7 90 3.

370 3 .955 149 3.068787 4.250 Total 38.14333 0.151 2.668 149 Between Groups Between Groups F Sig. 3.556 Within Groups 45.27467 3.652566 0.128 Within Groups 63.287 146 .03887 4.25126 2 5 More than 6 Year Total Table : 5.09385 4.385 3 1.603 .026 1.297381 3.36113 3.Political Empowerment Less than Year 1-3 Year 3-6 Year 13 3.809 149 1.668 3 .054 .65624 3 5 4.990338 0.20091 4.2 0.06332 4.2 ANOVA Sum of Squares Economic Empowerment Social Empowerment Political Empowerment Interpretation: Between Groups Df Mean Square 2.792 .2 0.433 Total 66.5 5 90 4.790 Within Groups 36.054616 4.69231 0.5.29076 2 5 40 4.03541 4.33668 2 5 7 15 0 3.439 146 .503832 0.786796 0.92857 0.079663 4.310 Total 46.284 146 .165 .668908 0.

06933 6 3.04167 0.44887 0.51035 5 0.7 20 .3872 3.3333 4.1111 4.3732 2 3.5964 8 3. H1 : There is significant relation between Age and Empowerment of Rural Women as a result of participation in Microfinance.Economic empowerment : the study states that there is significant relationship between duration of membership and economic empowerment of women as null hypothesis will be rejected as p < 0.07813 8 3.50 Year Above 50 Year 19 Total Social Empowerment 20 .8522 1 2.4545 4 0.4276 1 0. 5.30 Year 31 . Deviation Std.5848 5 0.3333 3.4555 6 3.3407 5 3.4160 4 0.1111 2.6.08334 6 3.2 4.6 ONEWAY ANOVA Empowerment & Age H0 : There is no significant relation between Age and Empowerment of Rural Women as a result of participation in Microfinance.05.1111 55 3.3155 3 3.54653 9 0.55740 5 0.1 Descriptive 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Economic Empowerment N Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 33 3.2478 4 3.5935 5 2.05.40 Year 41 .53057 4 0.7825 2.09703 2 Minimum Maximum .4444 4. Social empowerment: the study states that there is no significant relationship between duration of membership and Social empowerment of women as null hypothesis will be accepted as p > 0.5842 4 2.30 Year 150 33 0.5556 3.5867 7 2.05.3333 4. Table 5.51421 0.2684 5 3.12172 2 3. Political empowerment: the study states that there is no significant relationship between duration of membership and Political empowerment of women as null hypothesis will be accepted as p > 0.5379 3.5556 4.4444 43 3.

04583 5 3.66890 8 0.70341 4 0.339 146 .5 5 43 4.40 Year 0.2 4.8191 3 4.1433 3 0.6515 5 4.08099 4 3.50 Year 43 Above 50 Year 19 Total Political Empowerment 20 .6.66326 7 0.1727 3 0.810 .75121 7 0.149 .310 Total 46.3313 8 3.1666 7 0.5482 2 2.2512 6 2 5 2 5 55 3.17234 1 0.2 4.6105 3 3.101147 3.804 .560 Within Groups 45.6.Table 5.4160 9 2 5 55 4.07664 8 3.7 33 4.50 Year Above 50 Year 19 Total 150 Table 5.2 ANOVA Sum of Squares Economic Empowerment Between Groups Mean Square .0354 1 4.8896 8 3.05461 6 3.1 Descriptive 31 .263 Total 38.597 . .56136 7 0.490 .6 150 3.449 Total 66.0037 1 4.955 149 1.2408 8 3.3945 5 41 .40 Year 41 .364 Within Groups 65.2 4.08430 6 4.2894 7 4.0232 6 0.9172 5 4.12244 9 3.618 1.5 3.276 146 .1877 1 3.6 0.3417 5 2.668 149 Social Empowerment Between Groups Political Empowerment df Between Groups F Sig.091 3 .809 149 1.56843 5 0.531114 0.5419 1 2.6 4.62522 7 0.2273 8 2 5 4.30 Year 31 .577 146 .9274 4.3607 6 3.13287 1 0.57917 1 0.4513 3 2.5146 2 2.35116 0.679 3 .157 Within Groups 38.470 3 .

05. Social empowerment: the study states that there is no significant relationship between duration of membership and Social empowerment of women as null hypothesis will be accepted as p > 0.05.Interpretation: Economical empowerment: the study states that there is no significant relationship between duration of membership and Economical empowerment of women as null hypothesis will be accepted as p > 0. Political empowerment: the study states that there is no significant relationship between duration of membership and Political empowerment of women as null hypothesis will be accepted as p > 0.05. .