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

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

N Mean

Std.

Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Economic

Empowerment

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

Total 150 3.455557 .5103548 .0416703 3.373216 3.537898 2.1111 4.5556

Social

Empowerment

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

Total 150 3.451333 .5613666 .0458354 3.360762 3.541905 2.2000 4.7000

Political

Empowerment

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

Total 150 4.143333 .6689084 .0546161 4.035411 4.251256 2.0000 5.0000

Table : 5.2.2 ANOVA

Sum of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Economic Empowerment Between Groups 6.455 2 3.228 14.665 .000

Within Groups 32.354 147 .220

Total 38.809 149

Social Empowerment Between Groups 14.428 2 7.214 32.603 .000

Within Groups 32.527 147 .221

Total 46.955 149

Political Empowerment Between Groups 6.603 2 3.302 8.080 .000

Within Groups 60.065 147 .409

Total 66.668 149

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 (I) DISTRICT (J) DISTRICT

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Economic Empowerment

Sabarkantha Patan

0.008896 0.093828 0.995 -0.21326 0.231052Banaskantha

-.4355480* 0.093828 0.000 -0.6577 -0.21339Patan Sabarkantha

-0.0089 0.093828 0.995 -0.23105 0.21326Banaskantha

-.4444440* 0.093828 0.000 -0.6666 -0.22229Banaskantha Sabarkantha

.4355480* 0.093828 0.000 0.213392 0.657704Patan .4444440* 0.093828 0.000 0.222288 0.6666

Social Empowerment

Sabarkantha Patan-0.19 0.094079 0.111 -0.41275 0.032749

Banaskantha

-.7320000* 0.094079 0.000 -0.95475 -0.50925Patan Sabarkantha

0.19 0.094079 0.111 -0.03275 0.412749Banaskantha

-.5420000* 0.094079 0.000 -0.76475 -0.31925Banaskantha Sabarkantha

.7320000* 0.094079 0.000 0.509251 0.954749Patan

.5420000* 0.094079 0.000 0.319251 0.764749Political Empowerment

Sabarkantha Patan-0.01 0.127845 0.997 -0.3127 0.292697

Banaskantha

-.4500000* 0.127845 0.002 -0.7527 -0.1473Patan Sabarkantha

0.01 0.127845 0.997 -0.2927 0.312697Banaskantha

-.4400000* 0.127845 0.002 -0.7427 -0.1373Banaskantha Sabarkantha

.4500000* 0.127845 0.002 0.147303 0.752697Patan

.4400000* 0.127845 0.002 0.137303 0.742697*. 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

DISTRICT N

Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2Patan 50 3.304444  Sabarkantha

50 3.31334 

Banaskantha

50 

3.748888Sig.   0.995 1Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

5.4.2 Social Empowerment

DISTRICT N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2Sabarkantha

50 3.144 

Patan 50 3.334  Banaskantha

50 

3.876Sig.   0.111 1Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

5.4.3 Political Empowerment

DISTRICT N

Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2Sabarkantha

50 3.99 

Patan 50 4  Banaskantha

50 

4.44Sig.   0.997 1Means 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

   

N MeanStd.

DeviationStd. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

MinimumMaxim

um

   Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Economic Empowerment

Less than Year

13 3.06837 0.441036 0.122321 2.80185 3.33488 2.3333 41-3 Year

40 3.49723 0.405712 0.064149 3.36748 3.62698 2.5556 4.11113-6 Year

90 3.47654 0.522554 0.055082 3.3671 3.58599 2.1111 4.5556More than 6 Year

7 3.66667 0.750851 0.283795 2.97225 4.36109 2.1111 4.3333Total

150 3.45556 0.510355 0.04167 3.37322 3.5379 2.1111 4.5556Social Empowerment

Less than Year

13 3.18462 0.63357 0.175721 2.80175 3.56748 2.2 4.51-3 Year

40 3.52 0.573429 0.090667 3.33661 3.70339 2.5 4.73-6 Year

90 3.43778 0.536233 0.056524 3.32547 3.55009 2.2 4.6More than 6 Year

7 3.72857 0.585133 0.22116 3.18741 4.26973 2.8 4.6Total

150 3.45133 0.561367 0.045835 3.36076 3.54191 2.2 4.7Political Empowerment

Less than Year 13 3.69231 0.990338 0.27467 3.09385 4.29076 2 5

1-3 Year40 4.2 0.503832 0.079663 4.03887 4.36113 3.5 5

3-6 Year90 4.2 0.652566 0.068787 4.06332 4.33668 2 5

More than 6 Year

7 3.92857 0.786796 0.297381 3.20091 4.65624 3 5Total

150 4.14333 0.668908 0.054616 4.03541 4.25126 2 5

Table : 5.5.2 ANOVA

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Economic Empowerment Between Groups 2.370 3 .790 3.165 .026

Within Groups 36.439 146 .250

Total 38.809 149

Social Empowerment Between Groups 1.668 3 .556 1.792 .151

Within Groups 45.287 146 .310

Total 46.955 149

Political Empowerment Between Groups 3.385 3 1.128 2.603 .054

Within Groups 63.284 146 .433

Total 66.668 149

Interpretation:

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

   

N MeanStd.

DeviationStd. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum    Lower

BoundUpper Bound

Economic Empowerment

20 - 30 Year

33 3.42761 0.448870.07813

8 3.26845 3.58677 2.4444 4.111131 - 40 Year

55 3.45454 0.514210.06933

6 3.31553 3.59355 2.3333 4.444441 - 50 Year

43 3.416040.54653

90.08334

6 3.24784 3.58424 2.1111 4.5556Above 50 Year

19 3.596480.53057

40.12172

2 3.34075 3.85221 2.3333 4.3333Total

150 3.455560.51035

5 0.04167 3.37322 3.5379 2.1111 4.5556Social Empowerment

20 - 30 Year

33 3.584850.55740

50.09703

2 3.3872 3.7825 2.2 4.731 - 40 Year

55 3.394550.56843

50.07664

8 3.24088 3.54822 2.2 4.541 - 50 Year 43 3.35116 0.53111

40.08099

43.18771 3.51462 2.2 4.6

Above 50 Year

19 3.610530.57917

10.13287

1 3.33138 3.88968 2.6 4.6Total

150 3.451330.56136

70.04583

5 3.36076 3.54191 2.2 4.7Political Empowerment

20 - 30 Year

33 4.166670.70341

40.12244

9 3.91725 4.41609 2 531 - 40 Year

55 4.172730.62522

70.08430

6 4.00371 4.34175 2.5 541 - 50 Year

43 4.023260.66326

70.10114

7 3.81913 4.22738 2 5Above 50 Year

19 4.289470.75121

70.17234

1 3.9274 4.65155 2 5Total

150 4.143330.66890

80.05461

6 4.03541 4.25126 2 5

Table 5.6.2 ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Economic Empowerment

Between Groups .470 3 .157 .597 .618

Within Groups 38.339 146 .263

Total 38.809 149

Social Empowerment Between Groups 1.679 3 .560 1.804 .149

Within Groups 45.276 146 .310

Total 46.955 149

Political Empowerment

Between Groups 1.091 3 .364 .810 .490

Within Groups 65.577 146 .449

Total 66.668 149

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.