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 cronbachs 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
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 Womens 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
Ability to cast votes Independently
4.35
0.752
150
5.2 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.
H1 : There is significant relation between District and Empowerment of Rural Women as a result
of participation in Microfinance.
Table : 5.2.1 Descriptive
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std.
N
Economic
Mean
Deviation Std. Error
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Minimum
Maximum
Sabarkantha
50
3.313340 .5234205
.0740228 3.164586
3.462094
2.1111
4.5556
Patan
50
3.304444 .5181612
.0732791 3.157184
3.451704
2.1111
4.3333
Banaskantha
50
3.748888 .3432468
.0485424 3.651338
3.846438
3.0000
4.4444
150
3.455557 .5103548
.0416703 3.373216
3.537898
2.1111
4.5556
Sabarkantha
50
3.144000 .4096589
.0579345 3.027576
3.260424
2.2000
4.5000
Patan
50
3.334000 .5355181
.0757337 3.181807
3.486193
2.2000
4.3000
Banaskantha
50
3.876000 .4573928
.0646851 3.746010
4.005990
2.7000
4.7000
150
3.451333 .5613666
.0458354 3.360762
3.541905
2.2000
4.7000
Sabarkantha
50
3.990000 .6737801
.0952869 3.798514
4.181486
2.0000
5.0000
Patan
50
4.000000 .6226998
.0880631 3.823031
4.176969
2.5000
5.0000
Banaskantha
50
4.440000 .6197432
.0876449 4.263871
4.616129
3.0000
5.0000
150
4.143333 .6689084
.0546161 4.035411 4.251256
2.0000
5.0000
Empowerment
Total
Social
Empowerment
Total
Political
Empowerment
Total
Table : 5.2.2 ANOVA
Mean
Sum of Squares
Economic Empowerment
Social Empowerment
Political Empowerment
Between Groups
df
Square
6.455
3.228
Within Groups
32.354
147
.220
Total
38.809
149
Between Groups
14.428
7.214
Within Groups
32.527
147
.221
Total
46.955
149
6.603
3.302
Within Groups
60.065
147
.409
Total
66.668
149
Between Groups
Sig.
14.665
.000
32.603
.000
8.080
.000
Interpretation :
The study reported that District and The Women Empowerment has significant relationship ( p <
0.05 ), so here we will reject the Null Hypothesis. So we can conclude that there is significant
relation between District and Its Women Empowerment. That means the status of women
empowerment in all three district is different.
Post Hoc Multiple Comparison
Rejection of null hypothesis in ANOVA only tell us that all population means are not equal.
Multiple comparison are used to assess which group means differ from which others, once the
overall F test tells us that at least one difference exists.
5.3 Post Hoc Tests
Table : 5.3. Multiple Comparisons
Dependent
Variable
Economic
Empowerment
(I) DISTRICT
Sabarkantha
(J) DISTRICT
Patan
95% Confidence
Interval
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
Lower
Bound
0.008896
0.093828
0.995
-0.21326
0.231052
-.4355480*
0.093828
0.000
-0.6577
-0.21339
-0.0089
0.093828
0.995
-0.23105
0.21326
-.4444440*
0.093828
0.000
-0.6666
-0.22229
.4355480*
0.093828
0.000
0.213392
0.657704
.4444440
0.093828
0.000
0.222288
0.6666
-0.19
0.094079
0.111
-0.41275
0.032749
-.7320000*
0.094079
0.000
-0.95475
-0.50925
0.19
0.094079
0.111
-0.03275
0.412749
-.5420000*
0.094079
0.000
-0.76475
-0.31925
.7320000*
0.094079
0.000
0.509251
0.954749
.5420000
0.094079
0.000
0.319251
0.764749
-0.01
0.127845
0.997
-0.3127
0.292697
-.4500000*
0.127845
0.002
-0.7527
-0.1473
0.01
0.127845
0.997
-0.2927
0.312697
-.4400000*
0.127845
0.002
-0.7427
-0.1373
.4500000*
0.127845
0.002
0.147303
0.752697
.4400000*
0.127845
0.002
0.137303
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
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Interpretation:
Since we have three districts total of the six pairs will be possible in which three will be in mirror
images. The results are shown in three rows.
Economic Empowerment of Sabarkantha and Patan is same as p > 0.05 so there is no significant
difference between Sabarkantha and Patan. Where there is significant difference in economic
empowerment of Sabarkantha and Banaskantha ( p < 0.05 ) and there is significant difference
between Patan and Banaskantha ( p < 0.05 ).
As far as Social Empowerment is concerned , Sabarkantha and Patan is same as p > 0.05 so there
is no significant difference between Sabarkantha and Patan. Where there is significant difference
in Social empowerment of Sabarkantha and Banaskantha ( p < 0.05 ) and there is significant
difference between Patan and Banaskantha ( p < 0.05 ).
As far as Political Empowerment is concerned, Sabarkantha and Patan is same as p > 0.05 so
there is no significant difference between Sabarkantha and Patan. Where there is significant
difference in Political empowerment of Sabarkantha and Banaskantha ( p < 0.05 ) and there is
significant difference between Patan and Banaskantha ( p < 0.05 ).
5.4 Homogeneous Subsets
5.4.1 Economic Empowerment
Subset for alpha = 0.05
DISTRICT
Patan
50
3.304444
50
3.31334
Sabarkantha
Banaskantha
50
Sig.
3.748888
0.995
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
DISTRICT
5.4.2 Social Empowerment
N
Subset for alpha = 0.05
1
Sabarkantha
Patan
50
3.144
50
3.334
Banaskantha
50
3.876
Sig.
0.111
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
5.4.3 Political Empowerment
Subset for alpha = 0.05
DISTRICT
Sabarkantha
Patan
50
3.99
50
Banaskantha
50
Sig.
4.44
0.997
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
Interpretation :
Economic Empowerment : The districts are clubbed in homogenous subsets. Banashkantha
with a mean of 3.748 is put under subsets 2. And Sabarkantha and Patan with means of 3.304 and
3.313 are put under subsets 1. This means that district Sabarkantha and Patan are do not
significantly differ from each other and form homogenous subsets. Where as they are different
from Banaskantha.
Social Empowerment : The districts are clubbed in homogenous subsets. Banashkantha with a
mean of 3.876 is put under subsets 2. And Sabarkantha and Patan with means of 3.144 and 3.334
are put under subsets 1. This means that district Sabarkantha and Patan are do not significantly
differ from each other and form homogenous subsets. Where as they are different from
Banaskantha.
Political Empowerment : The districts are clubbed in homogenous subsets. Banashkantha with
a mean of 4.44 is put under subsets 2. And Sabarkantha and Patan with means of 3.99 and 4.00
are put under subsets 1. This means that district Sabarkantha and Patan are do not significantly
differ from each other and form homogenous subsets. Where as they are different from
Banaskantha.
5.5 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.
H1 : There is significant relation between Duration of Membership and Empowerment of Rural
Women as a result of participation in Microfinance.
5.5.1 Descriptive
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Economic
Empowerment
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Minimu
m
Maxim
um
13
3.06837
0.441036
0.122321
2.80185
3.33488
2.3333
40
3.49723
0.405712
0.064149
3.36748
3.62698
2.5556
4.1111
90
3.47654
0.522554
0.055082
3.3671
3.58599
2.1111
4.5556
7
15
0
3.66667
0.750851
0.283795
2.97225
4.36109
2.1111
4.3333
3.45556
0.510355
0.04167
3.37322
3.5379
2.1111
4.5556
13
3.18462
0.63357
0.175721
2.80175
3.56748
2.2
4.5
40
3.52
0.573429
0.090667
3.33661
3.70339
2.5
4.7
90
3.43778
0.536233
0.056524
3.32547
3.55009
2.2
4.6
7
15
0
3.72857
0.585133
0.22116
3.18741
4.26973
2.8
4.6
3.45133
0.561367
0.045835
3.36076
3.54191
2.2
4.7
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
Political
Empowerment
Less than Year
1-3 Year
3-6 Year
13
3.69231
0.990338
0.27467
3.09385
4.29076
40
4.2
0.503832
0.079663
4.03887
4.36113
3.5
90
4.2
0.652566
0.068787
4.06332
4.33668
7
15
0
3.92857
0.786796
0.297381
3.20091
4.65624
4.14333
0.668908
0.054616
4.03541
4.25126
More than 6 Year
Total
Table : 5.5.2 ANOVA
Sum of Squares
Economic Empowerment
Social Empowerment
Political Empowerment
Interpretation:
Between Groups
Df
Mean Square
2.370
.790
Within Groups
36.439
146
.250
Total
38.809
149
1.668
.556
Within Groups
45.287
146
.310
Total
46.955
149
3.385
1.128
Within Groups
63.284
146
.433
Total
66.668
149
Between Groups
Between Groups
Sig.
3.165
.026
1.792
.151
2.603
.054
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 <
0.05.
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.
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.
5.6 ONEWAY ANOVA Empowerment & Age
H0 : There is no significant relation between Age and Empowerment of Rural Women as a result
of participation in Microfinance.
H1 : There is significant relation between Age and Empowerment of Rural Women as a result of
participation in Microfinance.
Table 5.6.1 Descriptive
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Economic
Empowerment
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
33
3.4276
1
0.44887
0.07813
8
3.2684
5
3.5867
7
2.4444
4.1111
55
3.4545
4
0.51421
0.06933
6
3.3155
3
3.5935
5
2.3333
4.4444
43
3.4160
4
0.54653
9
0.08334
6
3.2478
4
3.5842
4
2.1111
4.5556
3.5964
8
3.4555
6
3.5848
5
0.53057
4
0.51035
5
0.55740
5
0.12172
2
3.3407
5
3.3732
2
3.3872
3.8522
1
2.3333
4.3333
3.5379
3.7825
2.1111
2.2
4.5556
4.7
20 - 30 Year
31 - 40 Year
41 - 50 Year
Above 50 Year
19
Total
Social
Empowerment
20 - 30 Year
150
33
0.04167
0.09703
2
Minimum
Maximum
Table 5.6.1 Descriptive
31 - 40 Year
0.56843
5
0.07664
8
3.2408
8
3.5482
2
2.2
4.5
3.35116
0.531114
0.08099
4
3.1877
1
3.5146
2
2.2
4.6
0.57917
1
0.56136
7
0.13287
1
0.04583
5
3.3313
8
3.3607
6
3.8896
8
3.5419
1
2.6
4.6
150
3.6105
3
3.4513
3
2.2
4.7
33
4.1666
7
0.70341
4
0.12244
9
3.9172
5
4.4160
9
55
4.1727
3
0.62522
7
0.08430
6
4.0037
1
4.3417
5
2.5
43
4.0232
6
0.66326
7
0.101147
3.8191
3
4.2273
8
4.2894
7
4.1433
3
0.75121
7
0.66890
8
0.17234
1
0.05461
6
3.9274
4.0354
1
4.6515
5
4.2512
6
55
3.3945
5
41 - 50 Year
43
Above 50 Year
19
Total
Political
Empowerment
20 - 30 Year
31 - 40 Year
41 - 50 Year
Above 50 Year
19
Total
150
Table 5.6.2 ANOVA
Sum of Squares
Economic
Empowerment
Between Groups
Mean Square
.470
.157
Within Groups
38.339
146
.263
Total
38.809
149
1.679
.560
Within Groups
45.276
146
.310
Total
46.955
149
1.091
.364
Within Groups
65.577
146
.449
Total
66.668
149
Social Empowerment Between Groups
Political
Empowerment
df
Between Groups
Sig.
.597
.618
1.804
.149
.810
.490
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 > 0.05.
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.
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.
