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.