Data Analysis

Table No.4.01 Profile of Respondents-Gender

SL. No. Gender Frequency % C.%

1 Male 22 44 44

2 Female 28 56 100

Total   50 100  
Graph No.4.01 Profile of Respondents-Gender

Male Female

Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and Graph represents the gender wise profile of respondents,
in which 44% are accounted for male and 56% are Female, its interpreted that majority are female
respondents.

Table No. 4.02 profile of respondents age group

SL. No Age group Frequency % C.%
1 >25 32 64 64
2 26-35 10 20 84
3 36-45 2 4 88
4 <46 6 12 100
Total  50 100  
Source: Primary Data

Graph No. 4.02 profile of respondents age group

 35

30

25

20

15

10

0
>25 26-35 36-45 <46

Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and graph represent age wise profile of the respondent in
which 64% are below the age of 25, 20% of the respondent are the age of 25 to 35, 4% of respondent are
the age between 36 to 45 and 12% respondent are above the age of 46, its interpreted that majority
respondent are below the age of 25.

Table No. 4.03 profile of respondents Education

SL. No Education Frequency % C.%

  Up to Metric 2 4 4
  Senior Secondary 17 34 38
  Graduate And Professionals 17 34 72
  Post Graduate 14 28 100
 Total  50 100  

Source: Primary Data

Graph No. 4.03 profile of respondents Education

 Frequency

Analysis
18
16 and
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Up to Metric Senior Secondary Graduate And Post Graduate
Professionals

Interpretation: Above table and graph represent education wise profile of the respondents in which 4%
respondent are up to Matric, 34 respondents are up to Senior Secondary Education, 34% respondents are
graduates and professionals, 28% of respondent are postgraduate, its represented that majority of
respondent are both senior secondary and graduate professionals.

Table No. 4.04 profile of respondent’s Marital status

SL. No Marital status Frequency % C.%

1 Married 24 48 48
2 Unmarried 26 52 100
 Total  50 100  
Source: Primary Data

Graph No. 4.04 profile of respondent’s Marital status

 Frequency
26
26

25.5

25

24.5
24
24

23.5

23
Married Unmarried

Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and graph represent the marital status of respondents which
represents 48% are accounted has married, 52% are accounted has unmarried, its represented that
majority are unmarried.

Graph No. 4.05 profile of respondents Occupation

SL. No Occupation Frequency % C.%

1 Business 13 26 26
2 Government 17 34 60
3 Student 8 16 76
4 Others 12 24 100
 Total  50 100  
Source: Primary Data

Graph No. 4.05 profile of respondents Occupation

Frequency

Others

Student

Government

Business

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and graph represents occupation of the respondents in which
26% are accounted has business profession, 34% are government service, 16% are students, and 24% are
from other profession, its represented that majority are from government.

Table No. 4.06 profile of respondents Area wise

SL. No Area Frequency % C.%

  Urban 8 16 16
  Rural 31 62 78
  Semi Urban 11 22 100
Total   50 100  
Source: Primary Data
Graph No. 4.06 profile of respondents Area wise

Frequency

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Urban Rural Semi Urban

Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and graph represents area wise profile which 16% are
accounted from urban, 62% are rural and, 22% are semi urban, its represented that majority of the
respondents are from rural area.

Table No. 4.07 profile of respondents Income wise

SL. No Income Frequency % C.%

1 >100000 28 56 56
2 100001-200000 8 16 72
3 200001-300000 6 12 84
4 <300000 8 16 100
Total   50 100  
Source: Primary Data

Graph No. 4.07 profile of respondents Income wise

30

25

20

15

10

0
>100000 100001-200000 200001-300000 <300000

Analysis and Interpretation: About table and graph represent income wise classification of respondents
in which 56% are accounted below the income of 100000, 16% of respondents are income of 100001 to
200000, 12% are 200001 to 300000, and 16% are the above income of 300000, its represents that
majority respondents are below the income of 100000.

Table No. 4.08 Respondents Awareness on banking Sector

Rank
Sector Total Score WAS
1 2 3 4 5
Public 31 10 7 1 1 50 229 0.18817
Private 15 24 8 2 1 50 224 0.18406
Foreign 8 15 19 6 2 50 186 0.15283
NBFC 11 17 14 7 1 50 197 0.16187
Aggri Banks 16 13 15 5 1 50 201 0.16516
Part time 8 15 15 8 4 50 180 0.14790
Total   1217 1
Source: Primary Data

Graph No. 4.08 Respondents Awareness on banking Sector

Part time
14% Private
26%

Aggri Banks
28%
Foreign
14%

NBFC
19%

Private Foreign NBFC Aggri Banks Part time

Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and graph represent awareness level of respondents among
various banking sectors in which public sectors are recorded has weighted average score of 0.18817,
private sectors are recorded weighted average score of 0.18406, foreign sectors are recorded weighted
average score of 0.15283, NBFC are recorded weighted average score of 197, aggri banks are recorded
weighted average score of 0.16187, and part time banks are recorded weighted average score of 0.16516,
It is understood that respondent awareness more on public sector with the weighted average score of
0.18817, and less on part time banking which is weighted average score of 180.

Table No. 4.09 Descriptive Statistics

Mean 0.162364
Standard Error 0.006240523
Median 0.16187
Standard Deviation 0.013954233
Sample Variance 0.000194721
Kurtosis 1.022055711
 Skewness 0.972487985
Range 0.03616
Minimum 0.1479
Maximum 0.18406
Sum 0.81182
Count 5
Source: Primary Data

Graph No. 4.09 Descriptive Statistics

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Table No. 4.10 Purpose of using their bank

SL. No Purpose Frequency % C.%
1 Deposit 24 48 48
2 Lone 14 28 76
3 General purpose 12 24 100
Total   50 100  
Source: Primary Data
Graph No. 4.10 Purpose of using their bank

24
25

20

14
15 12

10

0
Deposit Lone General purpose

Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and graph represent respondents purpose of using bank
account under which is 48% are recorded for deposit purpose, 28% are recorded for lone purpose, 24%
are recorded for general purpose, its interpreted that majority are using bank account for deposit purpose.

Table No. 4.11 profile of respondent’s type of bank Account

SL. No Type Frequency % C.%

1 Saving bank account 35 70 70
2 Current bank account 3 6 76
3 Fixed bank account 3 6 82
4 Recurring bank account 3 6 88
5 Salary bank account 6 12 100
Total   50 100  
Source: Primary Data

Graph No. 4.11 profile of respondent’s type of bank Account

 Salary bank account

Recurring bank account

Fixed bank account

Current bank account

Saving bank account

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and graph represents respondents’ types of bank account, in
which 70 % are having saving bank account,6 % of the respondents are having current bank account,6 %
of the respondents are having fixed bank account,6 % of the respondents are having recurring bank
account,12% of the respondents are having salary bank account, and its interpreted that majority are
having saving bank account.

Table No. 4.12 about respondents visit on their bank

SL. No Frequency Frequency % C.%

1 Daily 1 2 2
2 Weekly 3 6 8
3 Twice In A Week 1 2 10
4 Monthly 34 68 78
5 Yearly 11 22 100
Total   50 100  
Source: Primary Data
Graph No. 4.12 about respondents visit on their bank

Yearly

Monthly

Twice In A Week

Weekly

Daily

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and graph represent respondents visit on their bank, in which
2% of the respondents are the daily visitor, 6% are visit weekly, 2% are visit twice in a week, 68% are
monthly visitor, and 22% are yearly visit to the bank, and its interpreted that majority of the respondents
visit their bank monthly.

Table No. 4.13 profile of respondents annual transaction in bank

SL. No Amt Frequency % C.%

1 >100000 32 64 64
2 100001-200000 2 4 68
3 250001-500000 13 26 94
4 <500000 3 6 100
Total   50 100  
Source: Primary Data
Graph No. 4.13 profile of respondent’s annual transaction in bank

32
35

30

25

20
13
15

10
3
2
5

0
>100000 100001-200000 250001-500000 <500000

Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and graph represent respondents’ annual transaction in bank in
which 64% of the respondents below the annual transaction of 100000, 4% of the respondents are
between the transaction of 100001-200000, 26% of the respondents are between the transaction of
200001-500000, and 6% of the respondents are having above the annual transaction of 500000. And its
interpreted that majority of the respondents are having annual transaction below 100000

Table No. 4.14 profile of respondents Perception on service provider on public sector banks
Rank Total Score WAS
Attributes Strongly Strongly
Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree disagree
Trustworthy 19 21 8 1 1 50 205 0.28
Transparent 9 27 12 1 1 50 191 0.26
Complicated procedure 7 19 21 3 0 50 174 0.23
Lack of attractiveness 7 17 20 5 1 50 173 0.23
Total   743 1.00
Source: Primary Data
 Graph No. 4.14 profile of respondents Perception on service provider on public sector banks

Chart Title
30
27
25

21 21
20
20 19 19

15
12

10 9
8
7 7
5
5
3
1 1 1 1 1
0
Trustworthy Transparent Complicated procedure Lack of attractiveness

Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and graph represents respondent’s perception on service
provider on public sector banks, here trustworthiness of the public sector banks gained weighted average
score of 0.28, transparent nature of public sector banks gained weighted average score of 0.26, statement
of complicated procedures of public sector banks gained weighted average score of 0.23, and perception
on lack of attractiveness of public sector banks gained weighted average score of 0.23. its interpreted that
majority of the deponents believes that public sector banks are trustworthy.

Table No. 4.15 Perception on issues and challenges on public sector banks
Total Score WAS
Statements Strongly Strongly
Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree disagree
In public sector banks overhead cost is more 5 18 22 5 0 50 163 0.18
Delayed process in public sector banks 4 15 21 6 4 50 191 0.21
Lack of instant service in public sector banks 4 13 24 8 1 50 160 0.18
Errors and network issues are common in public sector
179 0.20
banks 12 8 25 3 2 50
Less consumer support in public sector banks 6 3 29 7 5 50 199 0.22
Total   892 1.00
Source: Primary Data
 Graph No. 4.15 Perception on issues and challenges on public sector banks

Chart Title
20
18
18
16 15
14 13
12
12
10
8 8
8 7
6 6
6 5 5 5
4 4 4
4 3 3
2
2 1
0
0
In public sector Delayed process Lack of instant Errors and Less consumer
banks overhead in public sector service in public network issues support in public
cost is more banks sector banks are common in sector banks
public sector
banks

Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and graph represents respondents perception on issue and
challenges of public sector banks, here statement on high overhead cost earned weighted average score of
0.18, delayed process in public sector banks earned weighted average score of 0.21, Lack of instant
service in public sector banks earned weighted average score of 0.18, statement of Errors and network
issues are common in public sector banks earned weighted average score of 0.20, and statement on Less
consumer support in public sector banks earned weighted average score of 0.22. its interpreted that most
of the respondents believe that less consumer support in public sector banks.

Table No. 4.15 Perception on service provider on Private sector banks

Strongly Strongly
Attributes Agree Neutral Disagree Total Score WAS
Agree disagree

Trustworthy 5 26 17 2 0 50 180 0.25

Transparent 5 24 19 2 0 50 178 0.25
Complicated procedure 7 16 19 5 3 50 186 0.26
 Lack of attractiveness 5 19 16 8 2 50 181 0.25
Total   725 1.00
Source: Primary Data

Graph No. 4.15 Perception on service provider on Private sector banks

30

26
25 24

20 19 19 19
17
16 16
15

10
8
7
5 5 5 5
5
3
2 2 2

0
Trustworthy Transparent Complicated Lack of attractiveness
procedure

Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and graph represents respondent’s perception on service
provider on private sector banks, Here trustworthiness of the public sector banks gained weighted average
score of 0.25, transparent nature of private sector banks gained weighted average score of 0.25, statement
of complicated procedures of private sector banks gained weighted average score of 0.26, and perception
on lack of attractiveness of private sector banks gained weighted average score of 0.25. its interpreted that
perception on complicated procedure gained more weighted average score.

Table No. 4.16 Perception on issues and challenges on Private sector banks
Rank Total Score WAS
Statements Strongly Strongly
Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree disagree
n private sector banks overhead cost is more 8 14 22 5 1 50 172 0.18
Delayed process in private sector banks 4 7 21 14 4 50 223 0.23
Lack of instant service in private sector banks 6 7 24 8 5 50 210 0.22
Errors and network issues are common in private sector 7 8 25 8 2 50 174 0.18
banks
Less consumer support in private sector banks 8 7 24 7 4 50 196 0.20
Total   975 1.00
Source: Primary Data

Graph No. 4.16 Perception on issues and challenges on Private sector banks
30

25
25 24 24
22
21
20

15 14 14

10
8 8 8 8 8
7 7 7 7 7
6
5 5
5 4 4 4
2
1
0
In private sector Delayed process in Lack of instant Errors and network Less consumer
banks overhead cost private sector banks service in private issues are common in support in private
is more sector banks private sector banks sector banks

Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and graph represents respondents perception on issue and
challenges of private sector banks, here statement on high overhead cost earned weighted average score
of 0.18, delayed process in private sector banks earned weighted average score of 0.23, Lack of instant
service in public sector banks earned weighted average score of 0.22, statement of Errors and network
issues are common in public sector banks earned weighted average score of 0.18, and statement on Less
consumer support in private sector banks earned weighted average score of 0.20. its interpreted that most
of the respondents believe that delayed process in private sector banks.

Table No. 4.17 Consolidated Table showing Perception on service provider on Public and Private
sector
Sl.No Factors Public sector banks Private sector banks
Score WAS Score WAS
1 Trustworthy 205 0.28 180 0.25
2 Transparent 191 0.26 178 0.25
 3 Complicated procedure 174 0.23 186 0.26
4 Lack of attractiveness 173 0.23 181 0.25
Total 743 1.00 725 1.00
Source: Primary Data

Table No. 4.17.1 Consolidated Table showing Perception on service provider on Public and Private
sector

Chart Title
Lack of attractiveness

Complicated procedure

Transparent

Trustworthy

0
50
100
150
200
250

Public sector banks Private sector banks

Table No. 4.18 Consolidated Weighted Average Score of Public and Private Sector- Perception on
service provider
Sl. No Factors
Public Private

1 Trustworthy 0.28 0.25

2 Transparent 0.26 0.25
3 Complicated procedure 0.23 0.26
4 Lack of attractiveness 0.23 0.25
Total 1 1
Source: Primary Data

Graph No. 4.18 Consolidated Weighted Average Score of Public and Private Sector- Perception on
service provider

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
Trustworthy Transparent Complicated Lack of
procedure atractiveness

Public Column1

Source: Primary Data

Table No. 4.19

Public Private
Mean 0.25 Mean 0.2525
Standard Error 0.012247 Standard Error 0.0025
Median 0.245 Median 0.25
Mode 0.23 Mode 0.25
Standard Deviation 0.024495 Standard Deviation 0.005
Sample Variance 0.0006 Sample Variance 0.000025
Kurtosis -2.94444 Kurtosis 4
Skewness 0.544331 Skewness 2
Range 0.05 Range 0.01
Minimum 0.23 Minimum 0.25
Maximum 0.28 Maximum 0.26
Sum 1 Sum 1.01
Count 4 Count 4
Source: Primary Data
Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and graph represents the descriptive statistics of both public
and private sector in for public sector mean is being, median is 0.245, mode is being 0.23, standard
deviation is 0.02 minimum and maximum is being 0.23 and 0.28 respectively.
In case of private sector mean is being 0.2525, median is 0.25, mode is being 0.25, standard
deviation is being 0.0005 minimum and maximum is being 0.25 and 0.26 respectively.

Table No. 4.19

Sum

Maximum

Minimum

Range

Skewness

Kurtosis

Sample Variance

Standard Deviation

Mode

Median

Standard Error

Mean
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Enova: Single Factor

Table No. 4.20

SUMMARY
Varianc
Groups Count Sum Average
e
Public 4 1 0.25 0.0006
0.00002
Private 4 1.01 0.2525
5

Source: Primary
Data
 Table No. 4.21

ANOVA
Source of
SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
1.25E- 1.25E- 0.84808 5.98737
Between Groups 1 0.04
05 05 7 8
0.00187 0.00031
Within Groups 6
5 3
0.00188
Total 7      
8
Source: Primary Data
Graph No. 4.21.1

Within Groups

Between Groups

0.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 3.00E+00 4.00E+00 5.00E+00 6.00E+00 7.00E+00

SS df MS F P-value F crit

HA: there is significance deference between public and private sector in terms of (add base on question)
HO: There is no significance between private and public sector in terms of (add based on question)
Analysis and Interpretation: The calculated value of F is 0.04 is lower than the table value of 5.987378.
066181 at 5% significance level with df being v1=1, v2=6. So there is a sufficient evidence to reject the
null hypothesis. That there is a significance difference between public and private sector in terms of (add
based on question)
Table No. 4.22 Consolidated Table showing Perception on issues & challenges on Public and
Private sector
Sl. Factors Public sector Private sector banks
No banks
Score WAS Score WAS
1 In public sector banks overhead cost is more 163 0.18 172 0.18
2 Delayed process in public sector banks 191 0.21 223 0.23
3 Lack of instant service in public sector banks 160 0.18 210 0.22
4 Errors and network issues are common in pulic
179 0.20 174 0.18
sector banks
5 Less consumer support in public sector banks 199 0.22 196 0.20
Total 892 1.00 975 1.00
Source: Primary Data

Graph No. 4.22.1 Consolidated Table showing Perception on issues & challenges on Public and
Private sector

250

200

150

100

50

0
In public sector Delayed process Lack of instant Errors and Less consumer
banks overhead in public sector service in public network issues support in public
cost is more banks sector banks are common in sector banks
pulic sector banks

Public sector banks Private sector banks

Graph No. 4.22.2 Consolidated Table showing Perception on issues & challenges on Public and
Private sector
 Chart Title
0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
In public sector Delayed process Lack of instant Errors and Less consumer
banks overhead in public sector service in public network issues support in public
cost is more banks sector banks are common in sector banks
pulic sector banks

Table No. 4.23 Consolidated Weighted Average Score of Public and Private Sector- Perception on
service provider

Sl.No Factors Public Private

1 In public sector banks overhead cost is more 0.18 0.18

2 Delayed process in public sector banks 0.21 0.23

3 Lack of instant service in public sector banks 0.18 0.22

Errors and network issues are common in public

4 0.2 0.18
sector banks

5 Less consumer support in public sector banks 0.22 0.2

Source: Primary Data
Above table and graph represent weighted average score of public and private sectors perception on
service provider

Graph No. 4.23 Consolidated Weighted Average Score of Public and Private Sector- Perception on
service provider

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05
Column1
Public
0
In public Delayed Lack of instant Errors and Less consumer
sector banks process in service in network support in
overhead cost public sector public sector issues are public sector
is more banks banks common in banks
pulic sector
banks

Public Column1
Table No. 4.24

Public Private
   
Mean 0.198 Mean 0.202
Standard Standard 0.01019
0.008
Error Error 8
Median 0.2 Median 0.2
Mode 0.18 Mode 0.18
Standard Standard
0.01788854 0.02280
Deviatio Deviatio
4 4
n n
Sample Sample
0.00032 0.00052
Variance Variance
-
Kurtosis Kurtosis -2.5074
2.32421875
Skewnes 0.05240784 Skewnes 0.22769
s 3 s 8
Range 0.04 Range 0.05
Minimu Minimu
0.18 0.18
m m
Maximu 0.22 Maximu 0.23
 m m
Sum 0.99 Sum 1.01
Count 5 Count 5
Source: Primary Data

Graph No. 4.24

Sum
Maximum
Minimum
Range
Skewness
Kurtosis
Sample Variance
Standard Deviation
Mode
Median
Standard Error
Mean

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Column2 Column4

Anova: Single Factor

Table No. 4.25

SUMMARY
S
Cou Aver Vari
Groups u
nt age ance
m
0.
0.19 0.000
Public 5 9
8 32
9
1.
0.20 0.000
Private 5 0
2 52
1
 1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
Public Private

Sum Average Variance

Table No. 4.26

ANOVA
P- F
Source of Variation SS df MS F
value crit
4E- 4E- 0.095 0.765 5.317
Between Groups 1
05 05 238 504 655
0.00 0.00
Within Groups 8      
336 042

0.00
Total 9        
34
Source: Primary Data

Graph No. 4.26

 Chart Title

Within Groups

Between Groups

0.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 3.00E+00 4.00E+00 5.00E+00 6.00E+00 7.00E+00 8.00E+00 9.00E+00

SS df MS F P-value F crit

Table No. 4.27 Respondents opinion towards deferent statements on public and private sector
banks

Strongly Strongly
Attributes Agree Neutral Disagree Total Score WAS
Agree disagree

Service offered by private sector banks comparatively more 9 26 13 2 0 50 188 0.20

Private sector concentrate more on promotion of services 6 26 14 4 0 50 176 0.19
Complex document required in public sector banks 11 19 14 3 3 50 191 0.21
No hidden cost in public sector bank 7 21 15 4 3 50 188 0.20
183
0.20
Easy procedure and time saving private sector bank 7 25 14 3 1 50
Source: Primary Data
Graph No. 4.27 Respondents opinion towards deferent statements on public and private sector

30

25

20

15

10

0
Service offered by Private sector Complex No hidden cost in Easy procedure
private sector concentrate more document public sector bank and time saving
banks on promotion of required in public
comparatively services sector banks
more

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

banks

Analysis and Interpretation: Above table and graph represents respondent opinion on public and private
sector bank, here the statement of service offered by private sector is comparatively more is gained
weighted average score of 0.20, statement of private sector which concentrate more on promotion of
services is gained the weighted average score of 0.19, statement on public sectors complex document
process is gained weighted average score of 0.21, statement on public sector which is no hidden cost is
gained weighted average score of 0.20, easy procedure and time saving in private sector bank earned
weighted average score of 0.20, its determined that statement of complex documentation is public sector
bank is gained more weighted average score.

Instruction

1. Add/Insert/Write the following

2. Table No ( if it is 4th Chapter table No Start from 4.01
3. Table Heading
4. Source
5. Graph No
6. Graph heading
7. Graph Source (Source: Table No.4.01)
8. Analysis and Interpretation’s