CHAPTER V ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATAshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/108431... · CHAPTER V ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 5.1.0 Introduction This chapter deals with

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS AND

INTERPRETATION OF DATA

74

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

5.1.0 Introduction

This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of all the responses

received from the users about Use of INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of Indian

Institutes of Technology. The data is analyzed using Mean, Standard Deviation (SD),

Chi square, Regression, Correlation, factor analysis, ANOVA and Reliability Test etc.

is presented below:

Section: 1 - Demographic profile

Section: 2 - Awareness and Familiarity with INDEST E-Resources

Section: 3 - Access and Use of INDEST E-Resources

Section: 4- Reliability Test for different factors

Section: 5 - Importance of INDEST E-Resources

Section: 6 - IIT wise Use of INDEST E-Resources by Faculty of IITs

Section: 7 - Designation wise using of INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of IITs

Section: 8- Age wise Use of INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of IITs

Section: 9- Computer Literacy in using INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of

IITs

Section: 10- Factors influencing usage of INDEST E-Resources by IIT faculty

members

Section: 11- Factors affecting INDEST E-Resources usage on level of satisfaction

by faculty of top seven IITs

Section: 12- Awareness of INDEST E-Resources among faculty of top seven IITs

Section: 13- Years of using of INDEST E-Resources among faculty of top seven

IITs

Section: 14- Format used to download INDEST E-Resources among faculty of top

seven IITs

75

Section: 15- Components of INDEST E-Resources used by faculty of top seven IITs

Section: 16- Features used to search INDEST E-Resources used by faculty of top

seven IITs

Section: 17- Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a week by

faculty of top seven IITs

Section: 18- Average time spent in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-

Resources by faculty of top seven IITs

Section: 19- Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources from faculty (students,

colleagues, etc.) of top seven IITs

Section: 20- Need to improve skills to use INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of

top seven IITs

Section: 21- Training /orientation need for effectively accessing INDEST E-

Resources usage by faculty of top seven IITs

76

SECTION -1

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

5.1.0 Introduction

Section 1deals with the analysis about various demographic (IIT, Gender, Age,

Education Qualification, Designation, Computer literacy) with the use of INDEST E-

Resources.

5.1.1 IIT Wise Distribution (Distribution of source data)

The investigator distributed a total of 2938 questionnaires amongst the

Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors of top seven IITs selected

for the study. Out of 2938 questionnaires distributed a total of 411 filled

questionnaires were received. Which were found to be usable were selected for the

study. The details of the distribution analysis are described in table 5.1.1 below.

Out of 7 Indian Institutes of Technology examined, IIT Bombay has the largest

number 102 (24.8%) followed by IIT Madras and IIT Guwahati with 87 (21.2%) and

70 (17.1%). 46 (11.3%) of the total respondents are from IIT Kharagpur followed by

IIT Kanpur, IIT Delhi and IIT Roorkee with 36 (8.7%), 36 (8.7%) and 34 (8.2%)

respectively.

5.1.1 IIT Wise Distribution (Distribution of source data)

S/N Name of the IIT

No of

Responses Percentage

1 IIT Kharagpur 46 11.3

2 IIT Bombay 102 24.8

3 IIT Madras 87 21.2

4 IIT Kanpur 36 8.7

5 IIT Delhi 36 8.7

6 IIT Guwahati 70 17.1

7 IIT Roorkee 34 8.2

Total 411 100.0

77

Figure 1: IIT Wise Distribution (Distribution of source data)

5.1.2 Gender

The sample selected for the study consists of both male and female

respondents. The gender wise distribution of Indian Institutes of Technology users is

shown in table 5.1.2 It may be seen from the table that majority of the respondents

numbering 348 (84.7%) are male and the remaining 63 (15.3%) are female.

Table 5.1.2: Gender

S/N Gender No of Responses Percentage

1 Male 348 84.7

2 Female 63 15.3

Total 411 100.0

Fig.2: Gender

11.3%

24.8%

21.2%

8.7%

8.7%

17.1%

8.2%

IIT Kharagpur

IIT Bombay

IIT Madras

IIT Kanpur

IIT Delhi

IIT Guwahati

IIT Roorkee

15.3%

84.7%

78

5.1.3 Age

Age has an important influence on the use of information in general and

INDEST E-Resources in particular. It is assumed that younger the age, higher is the

usage of INDEST e-resources. But the researcher found that senior faculty members

use e-resources more than the junior faculty members.

The Age wise distribution of INDEST E-Resources respondents is shown in

table 5.1.3. The age of the Indian Institutes of Technology faculty is arranged in

different age groups. It is clear from the table that majority of the respondents

numbering 165 (40 %) are in the age group of 36 – 45 years. The respondents between

the age group of 46 – 55 years numbering 93 (22.7%) are the second largest. About 81

(19.8%) respondents fall in the age group of 25 – 35 years. A few respondents

accounting 72 (17.6%) are in the age group of >56 years. The table clearly shows that

users in the age group between 36 and 45are the highest.

Table 5.1.3: Age

S/N Range of Age No. of Responses Percentage

1 25 - 35 81 19.8

2 36 – 45 165 40.0

3 46 – 55 93 22.7

4 >56 72 17.6

Total 411 100

Fig.3: Age

19.8%

40.0%

22.7%

17.6%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

25 to 35 yrs 36 - 45 46 - 55 >56

79

5.1.4 Educational Qualifications

The qualification wise distribution shown in table 5.1.4 provides the details of

the educational qualifications of the respondents. Total 411 respondents that is 100%

faculty have PhD Qualification. The M. Tech., M.Sc. and MBA are 0 numbers of

respondents.

Table 5.1.4: Educational Qualifications

S/N Educational

Qualifications

No of


1 M. Tech 0 0

2 M.Sc 0 0

3 MBA 0 0

4 PhD 411 100

Total 411 100.0

5.1.5 Designation

The designation of the respondents is taken as one of the variables for studying

the use of INDEST e-resources by faculty of top seven IITs in the study. The

designation wise breakup of responses is shown in table 5.1.5.It observed from the

table that majority of the respondents numbering 174 (42.2%) are Professors, whereas

143 respondents representing 34.9 percent are Assistant Professors and Associate

Professors represent 94 (22.9%).

Table 5.1.5: Designation

S/N Designation No of Responses Percentage

1 Professor 174 42.2

2 Associate Professor 94 22.9

3 Assistant Professor 143 34.9

Total 411 100.0

80

Fig.5: Designation

5.1.6 Level of Computer literacy

The computer literacy shown in table 5.1.6 provides the details of the

Computer literacy of the respondents. 263 respondents that is 64% faculty have good

computer literacy, 120 respondents are expert in computer literacy that is 29.2% and

remaining 28 respondents having average computer literacy that is 6.8%.

Table 5.1.6: Level of Computer literacy

S/N Level of Computer

Literacy

No of

Respondents Percentage

1 Expert 120 29.2

2 Good 263 64.0

3 Average 28 6.8

Total 411 100.0

42.2%

22.9%

34.9%

Professor

Associate Professor

Assistant Professor

81

Fig. 6: Level of Computer Literacy

5.1.7. Summary

The majority of responses are from IIT Bombay and IIT Madras (Table 5.1.1),

Maximum (84.7%) of the respondents are Male (Table 5.1.2), the users in the age

group of 36 and 45 years are the highest (Table 5.1.3), all respondents have Ph.D.

qualification (Table 5.1.4), the highest percentages of respondents are Professors

(Table 5.1.5), the maximum 263 respondents that is 64%faculty have good computer

literacy (Table 5.1.6).

Expert

Good

Average

Level of Computer Literacy

6.8%

29.2%

64%

82

SECTION -2

AWARENESS OF INDEST E-RESOURCES

5.2.0 Introduction

Section 2 deals with the analysis about respondent’s awareness of INDEST E-

Resources and Mode of awareness of INDEST E-Resources.

5.2.1 Awareness about INDEST E-Resources

Awareness of INDEST E-Resources is shown in table 5.2.1. It may be seen

from the table that all the respondents 411(100%) are aware of INDEST E-Resources.

Table 5.2.1: Awareness of INDEST E-Resources

S/N Type of response No of Responses Percentage

1 Yes 411 100.0

2 No 0 0.00

Total 411 100.0

Fig. 6: Awareness of INDEST E-Resources

5.2.2 Mode of awareness of INDEST E-Resources

The Mode of awareness of INDEST E-Resources is presented in table 5.2.2. It

may be seen from the table that there are several sources with which the faculty

members (Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors) become aware

the availability of INDEST E-Resources.

Nearly 248 respondents scoring 60.4% of the total respondents learnt about

INDEST E-Resources from ‘Library professional staff’; about 75 respondents scoring

0

100

200

300

400

500

YES No

Awareness of INDEST E-Resources

83

18.2%, approached ‘Colleagues’ to know about INDEST E-Resources; 64 of

respondents scoring 15.6% learnt from ‘Internet’ and the remaining by 24 respondents

scoring 5.8% learnt from ‘Friends’.

Table 5.2.2: Mode of INDEST E-Resources awareness

S/N Mode of Awareness No of


1 Friends 24 5.8

2 Library professional staff 248 60.4

3 Internet 64 15.6

4 Colleagues 75 18.2

Total 411 100.0

Fig. 7: Mode of INDEST E-Resources awareness

5.2.3 Summary

This section deals with awareness and familiarity of INDEST E-Resources among the

faculty of IITs. All the respondents are aware of INDEST E-Resources (Table 5.2.1).

Majority (60.3%) of the respondents became aware of INDEST E-Resources from

Library professional staff (Table 5.2.2).

5.8%

60.3%

15.6% 18.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Friends Library professional staff Internet Colleagues

84

SECTION - 3

ACCESS AND USE OF INDEST E-RESOURCES

5.3.0 Introduction

Section 3 presents the analysis of access and use of INDEST E-Resources,

place of accessing INDEST E-Resource, years of using INDEST E-Resources;

availability of important journals in INDEST- AICTE consortium; format used to

download INDEST E-Resources; components used in INDEST E-Resources; main

features used to search INDEST E-Resources; No. of articles read from INDEST E-

Resources per week and average time spent by faculty to access INDEST E-

Resources per week, purpose of using, advantages, disadvantages, availability and

accessibility of INDEST E-Resources, Importance, reading pattern, Satisfaction,

Facing any problem, Do you recommend to use, Do you need to improve your skills

and do you need training /orientation for effectively use INDEST E-Resources.

5.3.1 Access and use of INDEST E-Resources

The access and use of INDEST E-Resource by the faculty of IITs is shown in

table 5.3.1. It may be seen from the table that all IITs Faculty 411 (100%) access and

use INDEST E-Resources.

Table 5.3.1: Access and use of INDEST E-Resources

S/N Access & use of INDEST

E-Resources

No of

Respondents Percentage

1 Yes 411 100

2 No 0 0

Total 411 100.0

Fig.8: Access and use of INDEST E-Resources

411

0

Yes No

Access and use of INDEST E-Resources

85

5.3.2 Place of Access and Use INDEST E-Resources

The place of access and use INDEST E-Resource by the faculty of IITs is

shown in table 5.3.2. It may be seen from the table that majority of the respondents

accessing INDEST E-Resources 293 (71%) from Department followed by 65 (16%)

of the respondents access INDEST E-Resources in campus and remaining 53 (13%) of

the respondents access INDEST E-Resources from Library.

Table 5.3.2: Place of access and use INDEST E-Resources

S/N Place of Access No. of Responses Percentage

1 Library 53 13

2 Department 293 71

3 Campus 65 16

Total 411 100

Fig. 9: Place of access and use INDEST E-Resources

5.3.3 Years of Use of INDEST E-Resources

The years of use of INDEST E-Resources is shown in table 5.3.3. It may be

seen from the table that majority of the respondents are using INDEST E-Resources

from ‘more than 4 years (270; 65.8% )’, followed by respondents using INDEST E-

Resources since ‘1-4 years’ (79; 19.2%) and ‘Less than 1year’ (62; 15%).

13%

71%

16%

Place of Accessing INDEST E-Resources

Library Department Campus

86

Table 5.3.3: Years of Use of INDEST E-Resources

S/N Years of Use No of Responses Percentage

1 Less than 1 year 62 15.0

2 1-4 years 79 19.2

3 More than 4 years 270 65.8

Total 411 100.0

Fig.10: Years of Use of INDEST E-Resources

5.3.4 Average Time Spent by faculty to access INDEST E- Resources per Week

The average time spent by faculty to access INDEST E-Resources per week is

shown in table 5.3.4. It may be seen from the table that majority of the respondents

representing 144 (35.1%) spend more than 4 hours in a week followed by 136

respondents scoring 33.1% who spend 1-2 hours per week, 78 respondents spend 2-4

hours per week scoring 19% and 53 respondents spend less than 1 hour per week

scoring 12.8%.

Table 5.3.4: Average Time Spent by faculty to access INDEST E- Resources per

Week

S/N Average Time Spent Per Week No of Respondents Percentage

1 Less than 1 hour 53 12.8

2 1-2 hours 136 33.1

3 2-4 hours 78 19.0

4 More than 4 hours 144 35.1

Total 411 100.0

15.0% 19.3%

65.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Less than 1 yr 1-4 years More than 4 years

87

Fig. 11: Average Time Spent by faculty to access INDEST E- Resources/Week

5.3.5 Availability of Important Journals in INDEST-AICTE Consortium

The Availability of Important Journals in INDEST-AICTE consortia is shown

in the table 5.3.5. It may be seen from the table that majority of respondents (224;

54.6%) express that all the important journals are not available in INDEST-AICTE

consortia and only respondents (187; 45.4%) state that important journals are available

in INDEST-AICTE consortia.

Table 5.3.5: Availability of Important Journals in INDEST AICTE Consortium

S/N Availability of Important

Journals No. of Responses Percentage

1 Yes 187 45.4

2 No 224 54.6

Total 411 100.0

Fig.12: Availability of Important Journals in INDEST-AICTE Consortia

Less than 1

hour, 12.8%

1-2 hours,

33.1%

2-4 hours,

19.0%

More than 4

hours, 35.1%

45.4%

54.6%

Yes

No

88

5.3.6 Format Used to download INDEST E-Resources

The format used to download INDEST E-Resources is shown in table 5.3.6. It

may be seen from the table that 350 respondents that is 85.2% use PDF format and 61

respondents representing 14.8% use HTML format to download INDEST E-

Resources.

Table 5.3.6: Formats Used to download INDEST E-Resources

S/N Format Used No of Respondents Percentage

1 PDF 350 85.2

2 HTML 61 14.8

Total 411 100.0

Fig. 13: Format Used to download INDEST E-Resources

5.3.7 Components Used in INDEST E-Resources

The components used in INDEST E-Resources by the faculty members of top

seven IITs shown in table 5.3.7. It may be seen from the table that majority of the

respondents representing 341that is (82.9%) use full text followed by 53 respondents

scoring 12.8% use Abstract, 9 respondents use ‘Article references’ (2.3%) and 8

respondents use ‘Table of Contents’ (2%).

Table 5.3.7: Components Used in INDEST E-Resources

S/N Components No of Respondents Percentage

1 Table of contents 8 2.0

2 Abstract 53 12.8

3 Full Text 341 82.9

4 Article References 9 2.3

Total 411 100.0

PDF,

85.3%

HTML/S

GML,

14.8%

89

Fig. 14: Components Used in INDEST E-Resources

5.3.8 Main Feature Used to search INDEST E-Resources

The main features used to search INDEST E-Resources in table 5.3.8. It may

be seen from the table that majority of the respondents representing 192 (46.6%) use

INDEST E-Resources by ‘Author’ followed by 122 respondents (29.6%) who use

‘Journal name’, 49 respondents (12%) have selected Subject and the remaining 48

(11.8%) respondents use “title’ used to search INDEST E-Resources.

Table 5.3.8: Main Feature Used to search INDEST E-Resources

S/N Main Feature Used No of Respondents Percentage

1 Author 192 46.6

2 Journal name 122 29.6

3 Subject 49 12.0

4 Title 48 11.8

Total 411 100.0

Fig. 15: Main Feature Used to search INDEST E-Resources

2.0%

12.8%

82.9%

2.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Table of contents Abstract Full Text Article References

Author

Journal name

Subject

Title

0 10 20 30 40 50

Author

Journal name

Subject

Title

90

5.3.9 No. of INDEST E-Resources articles read by faculty per week

The number of INDEST E-Resources articles read by faculty members of top

seven IITs per week to do their academic and research activities in their field is shown

in table 5.3.9. It may be seen from the table that majority of the respondents

representing 168 respondents (40.9%) read ‘Less than 5’ articles, followed by 138

respondents (33.6%) who read ‘5-10’ articles and81 (19.8%) respondents read 11 -15

and articles, only 24 (5.8%) respondents state that they read ‘More than 15’ articles

per week.

Table 5.3.9: No. of INDEST E-Resources articles read by faculty per week

S/N No. of Articles read per week No of Respondents Percentage

1 Less than 5 168 40.8

2 5 to 10 138 33.6

3 11 to 15 81 19.8

4 More than 15 24 5.8

Total 411 100.0

Fig. 16: No. of INDEST E-Resources articles read by faculty per week

5.3.10 Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources

An attempt was made here to find out the Purpose of using INDEST E-

Resources by faculty of top seven IITs shown in table 5.3.10 the mean value and SD

for the eight attributes of purpose of using INDEST E-Resources. ‘Teaching’ has

represents with the mean value of 3.89 with a corresponding Standard Deviation is

0.97 followed by ‘Research’ with a highest mean value of 4.77 with a corresponding

Standard Deviation is 0.52. ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’ has the mean value of

Less than

5, 40.9%

5 to 10,

33.6%

11 to 15,

19.8%

More than

15, 5.8%

91

4.42 and the SD is 0.93 followed by ‘To write Articles’, ‘To know the trends in

Technical field’, ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in the field’,

‘To get latest facts and statistics’ and ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’ with

mean value of 4.39, 4.2, 4.17, 4.11 and 4.08 and their respective SD is 0.78, 1.09,

1.01, 1.01 and 0.97.

Table 5.3.10: Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources

S/N Attributes

Responses in Percentage (N=411)

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1 Teaching 6(1.5) 27(6.6) 82(19.9) 150(36.6) 145 (35.3) 3.89 0.97

2 Research 2(.5) 0(0) 6(1.5) 68(16.6) 334 (81.3) 4.77 0.52

3 To be up-to-date in the

subject 14(3.3) 4(1.0) 21(5.1) 145(35.3) 227 (55.2) 4.42 0.93

4 Preparing for seminars,

workshops etc 14(3.3) 7(1.8) 58(14.1) 170(41.3) 162 (39.5) 4.08 0.97

5 To get latest facts and

statistics 17(4.1) 7(1.8) 48(11.8) 166(40.4) 173 (41.9) 4.11 1.01

6 To know the trends in

Technical field 24(5.9) 2(.5) 39(9.5) 137(33.2) 209 (50.9) 4.2 1.09

7 To get comprehensive

knowledge and be

competitive in the field 15(3.6) 8(2.0) 51(12.5) 143(34.9) 193(46.9) 4.17 1.01

8 To write Articles 6(1.5) 4(1.0) 20(4.9) 161(39.1) 220 (53.5) 4.39 0.78

5.3.11 Advantages of INDEST E-Resources

An attempt was made here to find out the advantages inusing INDEST E-

Resources by faculty of top seven IITs shown in the table 5.3.11 and figure 16

provides the details of the Mean value and Standard deviatiion for the five attributes

of Advantages. The mean value for the ‘Search ability/search capabilities’ is 4.31 and

the Standard Deviation is 0.79 followed by ‘Convenience’, ‘Currency (Up-to-date

information)’, ‘User-friendly interface’ and ‘Retrieval possibilities’ with mean value

of 4.31, 4.28, 4.25 and 4.25 and their respective Standard Deviation is 0.81, 0.8, 0.78

and 0.83. ‘Full text retrieval’ has the highest mean value of 4.44 and the Standard

Deviation is 0.76 followed by ‘downloading possibilities’ with mean value of 4.40 and

Standard Deviation is 0.67. ‘Accuracy’ has the highest mean value of 4.01 and the

Standard Deviation is 0.82 followed by ‘Credibility’ and ‘Connecting people’ with

mean value of 4 and 3.4 and their respective Standard Deviation is 0.88 and 1.19.

92

Table 5.3.11: Advantages of INDEST E-Resources

S/N Attributes


Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1 Currency (Up-to-

date information) 4(1.0) 3(.8) 50(12.3) 165(40.2) 188 (45.7) 4.28 0.8

2 User-friendly

interface 2(.5) 7(1.8) 47(11.5) 176(43.0) 178 (43.2) 4.25 0.78

3 Searchability/sea

rch capabilities 5(1.3) 4(1.0) 37(9.0) 174(42.2) 191 (46.5) 4.31 0.79

4 Retrieval

possibilities 3(.8) 7(1.8) 58(14.1) 161(39.2) 182 (44.2) 4.23 0.83

5 Downloading

possibilities 0(.0) 1(.3) 39(9.5) 163(39.7) 208 (50.6) 4.4 0.67

6 Full text retrieval 0(.0) 9(2.3) 36(8.7) 121(29.4) 245 (59.6) 4.44 0.76

7 Convenience 0(.0) 9(2.3) 56(13.6) 139(34) 207 (50.1) 4.31 0.81

8 Connecting

people 25(6.1) 57(13.8) 160(38.9) 81(19.7) 88 (21.5) 3.4 1.19

9 Credibility 9(2.3) 9(2.3) 62(15.1) 222(54.0) 108 (26.3) 4 0.88

10 Accuracy 4(1.0) 8(2.0) 77(18.7) 210(51.2) 111 (27.1) 4.01 0.82

5.3.12 Disadvantages of INDEST E-Resources

An attempt was made here to find out the disadvantages of INDEST E-

Resources by faculty of top seven IITs shown in table 5.3.12 the mean value and

Standard Deviation for the eight attributes ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’ has

the highest mean value of 2.56 and the Standard Deviation is 1.35 followed by ‘Lack

of Standardized formats’ has the highest mean value of 2.55 and Standard Deviation is

1.2‘Often not included in indexing and abstracting services’ and ‘Limitations of

computer monitor’ with mean value of 2.47 and 2.37 and their Standard Deviation is

1.34. ‘Format that a large proportion of e-journals use’ and ‘Perishable Citation’ with

mean value of 2.37 and 2.33 and their Standard Deviation is 1.03 and 1.06.

‘Authenticity’ has a mean value of 2.21 and the Standard deviation is 1.11. ‘Search

engines ignores PDF files’ has the lowest mean value of 2.04 and the SD is 1.06.

93

Table 5.3.12: Disadvantages of INDEST E-Resources

S/N Attributes


Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1 Difficulty reading

computer screens 141(34.3) 92(22.5) 77(18.7) 58(14.1) 43 (10.5) 2.56 1.35

2 Limitations of

computer monitor 174(42.2) 71 (17.4) 85(20.7) 44(10.7) 37 (9.0) 2.37 1.34

3 Often not included

in indexing and

abstracting services 108(26.3)

151

(36.3) 69(16.9) 33(7.9) 50 (12.3) 2.47 1.34

4 Search engines

ignores PDF files 173(42.0)

128

(31.1) 75(18.2) 22(5.4) 14 (3.3) 2.04 1.06

5 Format that a large

proportion of e-

journal use 110(26.8)

145

(35.1) 97(23.5) 59(14.3) 1(.3) 2.37 1.03

6 Lack of

standardized

formats 106(25.6)

104

(25.1) 84(20.3) 108(26.7) 9(2.3) 2.55 1.2

7 Perishable citation 108(26.4)

127

(30.0) 101(24.3) 74(18.0) 1(.3) 2.33 1.06

8 Authenticity 148(35.9) 95 (23.1) 117(28.5) 44(10.7) 7(1.8) 2.21 1.11

5.3.13 Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources

This show about availability and accessibility of INDEST E-Resources

showed in the table 5.3.13 the mean value and the Standard Deviation for the six

attributes of ‘Availability and Accessibility’. ‘Desktop availability’ has the highest

mean value of 4.29 and Standard Deviation is 0.98. The mean value for ‘Prompt

accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’, ‘Free access’ and ‘Multiuser access’ is 4.26, 4.06

and 3.49 and their respective Standard Deviation is 1.04, 1.04 and 1.24 respectively,

‘Requiring special equipment’ has the highest mean value of 2.18 and the Standard

Deviation is 1.16 followed by ‘Requiring Training’ with mean value of 2.15 and the

Standard Deviation is 1.05.

94

Table 5.3.13: Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources

S/N Attributes


Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1

Prompt accessibility

(7/24 hours a day) 20(4.9) 13(3.1) 14(3.3) 143(34.8) 222(54.0) 4.26 1.04

2 Desktop availability 12(2.8) 17(4.1) 24(5.9) 140(34.0) 219(53.2) 4.29 0.98

3 Free access 12(2.8) 24(5.9) 57(13.8) 131(32.0) 187(45.5) 4.06 1.04

4 Multiuser access 43(10.5) 14(3.3) 134(32.7) 106(25.8) 144(27.7) 3.49 1.24

5

Requiring special

equipment 183(44.5) 78(18.9) 91(22.3) 49(12.0) 9(2.3) 2.18 1.16

6 Requiring training 149(36.3) 121(29.4) 96(23.3) 42(10.2) 3(.8) 2.15 1.05

5.3.14 Importance of INDEST E-Resources

The below Table 5.3.14 provide the details of the mean value and Standard

Deviation for the two attributes of Importance of INDEST E-Resources. ‘Do you

think that the information content of INDEST E-Resources is useful’ has a mean value

of 4.58 and the Standard Deviation is 0.74 followed by ‘Importance of the INDEST E-

Resources for your research’ with mean value of 4.57 and Standard Deviation is 0.74.

‘Importance’ has a mean value of 4.58 and the Standard Deviation is 0.71.

Table 5.3.14: Importance of INDEST E-Resources

S/

N Attributes


Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1

Importance of the

INDEST E-Resources for

your research 6(1.5) 1(.3) 18(4.3) 113(27.4) 273(66.5) 4.57 0.74

2

Do you think that the

information content of

INDEST E-Resources is

useful 6(1.5) 1(.3) 18(4.3) 111(27.0) 275(66.9) 4.58 0.74

95

5.3.15 Reading Pattern of INDEST E-Resources

The reading pattern of INDEST E-Resources journals by faculty of top seven

IITs shown in table 5.3.15 provide the details of the mean value and SD for the two

attributes of ‘Read Electronic and Read Print’. Read Electronic has the highest mean

value of 4.20 and the SD is 0.89. Read Print mean value is 3.23 and the SD is 1.16.

Table 5.3.14: Reading Pattern of INDEST E-Resources

S/

N Attributes


Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1 Read electronic(on monitor) 3(.8) 16(3.8) 57(13.8) 146(35.7) 189(45.9) 4.2 0.89

2 Read Print out 41(10.2) 52(11.5) 178(45.0) 68(16.4) 72(16.9) 3.23 1.16

5.3.16 Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources

With regard to the satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources shown in the

table 5.3.16 provides the details of the mean value and Standard Deviation for the

seven attributes of ‘Satisfaction’. The highest mean value is for ‘Infrastructure

available to Access INDEST E-Resources’4.15 and the Standard Deviation are 0.9.

‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the library’ has a mean value of 4.01

and the Standard Deviation is 0.98 followed by ‘Satisfaction obtained from using

INDEST E-Resources’, ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-Resources in your

library’, ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’, ‘How far INDEST E-

Resources available in library enable you to meet your needs’ and ‘Back volumes of

INDEST E-Resources available in library’ with mean value of 3.96, 3.86, 3.78, 3.78

and 3.58 and their respective Standard Deviation is 0.8, 0.99, 0.99, 1.07 and 1.07

respectively. ‘Satisfaction’ has an average mean value of 3.88 and the Standard

Deviation is 0.85.

96

Table 5.3.16: Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources

S/N Attributes


Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1 Required INDEST E-

Resources subscribed by

the library

3(.8) 38(9.2) 54(13.0) 163(39.7) 153(37.3) 4.01 0.98

2 Subject coverage of

available INDEST E-

Resources in your library

0(.0) 55(13.3) 55(13.6) 178(43.4) 123(29.7) 3.86 0.99

3 Number of INDEST E-

Resources available in

library

1(.3) 76(18.4) 66(16.1) 179(43.5) 89(21.7) 3.78 0.99

4 Back volumes of INDEST

E-Resources available in

library

6(1.5) 73(17.9) 76(18.4) 164(39.8) 92(22.3) 3.58 1.07

5 How far INDEST E-


library enable you to meet

your needs

11(2.6) 54(13.0) 49(12.0) 183(44.3) 115(28.1) 3.78 1.07

6 Satisfaction obtained from

using INDEST E-

Resources

1(.3) 23(5.6) 58(14.1) 229(55.6) 100(24.5) 3.96 0.8

7 Infrastructure available to

Access INDEST E-

Resources

2(.5) 30(7.4) 29(7.2) 183(44.5) 166(40.4) 4.15 0.9

5.3.17. Facing any problem while using INDEST E-Resources

Facing any problem while using INDEST E-Resources is shown in the table

5.3.17 that majority of respondents 359 (87.2%) express that they are not facing any

problem and remaining 52 (12.8%) respondents express that they are facing problem

while using INDEST E-Resources.

Table 5.3.17: Facing any problems while using INDEST E-Resources

S/N Facing any problem while using INDEST No. of


1 Yes 52 12.8

2 No 359 87.2

Total 411 100.0

97

Fig. 17: Facing any problem while using INDEST

5.3.18. Do you recommend INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues,

etc.)?

Do you recommend to use INDEST E-Resources is shown in the table 5.3.18

that majority of respondents 409 (99.0%) express that they recommend to use

INDEST E-Resources to others and remaining 2 (1%) respondents express that they

are not going to recommend to use INDEST E-Resources.

Table 5.3.18: Do you recommend INDEST E-Resources to others

S/N Do you recommend INDEST E-Resources to

others

No. of


1 Yes 409 99.0

2 No 2 1.0

Total 411 100.0

Fig. 18: Do you recommend INDEST E-Resources to others

Yes

No

Facing any problem while using

INDEST E-Resources

87.2%

12.8%

Yes

No99%

1%

Do you recommend INDEST E-

Resources to others

98

5.3.19. Do you need to improve your skill to use INDEST E-Resources?

Do you need to improve your skill to use INDEST E-Resources is shown in

the table 5.3.19 that majority of respondents 274 (66.0%) express that they are skilled

enough to use INDEST E-Resources and remaining 137 (34%) respondents express

that they want to improve their skills to use INDEST E-Resources.

Table 5.3.19: Do you need to improve your skill to use of INDEST E-Resources

S/N Need to improve your skill to use INDEST

E-Resources

No. of


1 Yes 137 34.0

2 No 274 66.0

Total 411 100.0

Fig. 19: Do you need to improve your skill to use INDEST E-Resources

5.3.20. Do you need training /orientation for effectively use INDEST E-Resources

Do you need training /orientation for effectively use INDEST E-Resources use

is shown in the table 5.3.20 that majority of respondents 323 (78.0%) express that they

don’t want any training to use INDEST E-Resources and remaining 88 (22%)

respondents express that they required training /orientation for effectively use

INDEST E-Resources.

Yes

No

Need to improve your skill in

the use of INDEST E-Resources

66% 34%

99

Table 5.3.20: Do you need training /orientation for effectively use INDEST E-

Resources

S/N Need training /orientation for effectively

use INDEST E-Resources

No. of


1 Yes 88 22.0

2 No 323 78.0

Total 411 100.0

Fig. 20: Need training /orientation for effectively use INDEST E-Resources

5.3.21 Summary

This section 3 deals with awareness and familiarity of INDEST E-Resources to the

faculty of IITs. The summary of section 5.3 indicates that all IIT Faculty access and use

INDEST E-Resources 411(100%) (Table 5.3.1) Majority of the respondent’s access

and use INDEST E-Resources (293; 71%) from Department (Table 5.3.2). The

majority (270; 65.8%)of the respondents are using INDEST E-Resources from ‘more

than 4 years’(Table 5.3.3). 144 (35.1%) spend more than 4 hours in a week, followed

by 136 (33.1%) who spend 1-2 hours per week (Table 5.3.4). 224; 54.6% Faculty

members express that important journals are not available in INDEST-AICTE

consortia(Table 5.3.5). 350 respondents are scoring 85.2% use PDF format to

download (Table 5.3.6). Majority that is 341 (82.9%) use full text in INDEST E-

Resources (Table 5.3.7). (46.6%) that is 192 IIT Faculty use Author to search in

INDEST E-Resources (Table 5.3.8). Majority 168 (40.9%) read ‘Less than 5’ articles,

followed by 138 (33.6%) who read ‘5-10’ articles per week (Table 5.3.9). ‘Research’

with a highest mean value of 4.77 with a corresponding Standard Deviation is 0.52.

Yes

No

Need Training/Orientation

22%

78%

100

‘To be up-to-date in the subject’ has the mean value of 4.42 and the SD is 0.93 (Table

5.3.10). ‘Full text retrieval’ has the highest mean value of 4.44 and the Standard

Deviation is 0.76 followed by ‘downloading possibilities’ with mean value of 4.40 and

Standard Deviation is 0.67 (Table 5.3.11). ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’ has

the highest mean value of 2.56 and the Standard Deviation is 1.35 followed by ‘Lack


1.2 (Table 5.3.12). Desktop availability’ has the highest mean value of 4.29 and

Standard Deviation is 0.98 (Table 5.3.13). Importance of INDEST E-Resources ‘Do

you think that the information content of INDEST E-Resources is useful’ has a mean

value of 4.58 and the Standard Deviation is 0.74 (Table 5.3.14). Read Electronic has

the highest mean value of 4.20 and the SD is 0.89 (Table 5.3.15). The highest mean

value is for ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-Resources’4.15 and the

Standard Deviation are 0.9. ‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the

library’ has a mean value of 4.01 and the Standard Deviation is 0.98 (Table 5.3.16).

Majority of respondents 359 (87.2%) expressed that they are not facing any problem

(Table 5.3.17). The Majority of respondents 409 (99.0%) expressed that they

recommend to use INDEST E-Resources to others (Table 5.3.18). Majority of

respondents 274 (66.0%) expressed that they are skilled enough to use INDEST E-

Resources (Table 5.3.19). The majority of respondents 323 (78.0%) expressed that

they don’t want any training to use INDEST E-Resources (Table 5.3.20).

101

SECTION - 4

RELIABILITY TEST FOR DIFFERENT FACTORS

5.4.0 Introduction

Section 4 deals with the reliability test for different factors, ways and means of

obtaining and using, skills required, purpose of using, limitation, availability and

accessibility, core purpose and satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources by faculty

members of top seven IITs.

5.4.1 Test Result

The table 5.4.1 shows the reliability test for the different factors. ‘Satisfaction’

has the highest Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.948 followed by ‘Importance’, ‘F2

Disadvantages’, ‘F1 Basic Advantage’, ‘F3 Augmented Purpose’ and ‘F5 Limitation

of accessing system’ with Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.904, 0.893, 0.873, 0.862 and

0.851 respectively. The Cronbach's Alpha value for ‘F9 Value Addition’ is 0.827, ‘F4

Availability and accessibility’ is 0.810, ‘F7 Expected Facilitation’ is 0.806, ‘F8 Core

purpose’ is 0.734 and ‘F6 Strength in accessing network’ is 0.72.

It can be interpreted from the above details that ‘Satisfaction’ has the highest

Cronbach's Alpha value and ‘F6 Strength in accessing network’ has the lowest

Cronbach’s Alpha value.

Table 5.4.1: Test Result

Constructs Cronbach's Alpha

F1 Basic Advantages 0.873

F2 Disadvantages 0.893

F3 Augmented Purpose 0.862

F4 Availability and accessibility 0.810

F5 Limitation of accessing system 0.851

F6 Strength in accessing network 0.720

F7 Expected Facilitation 0.806

F8 Core purpose 0.734

F9 Value addition 0.827

Satisfaction 0.948

Importance 0.904

102

Factor Analysis

An attempt was made to know the general purpose of factor analysis is to find

a method of summarizing the information contained in a number of original variables

to a smaller set of new composite dimensions (factors) with minimum loss of

information. That is, the Factor Analysis tries to identify and define the underlying

dimensions in the original variables.

5.4.2 Rotated Component Matrix

Rotated Component Method for factor extraction is used, wherein the number

of factors necessary to represent the data and the method of calculating them must be

determined. At this step, how well the chosen model fits the data is also ascertained.

Eigen value is kept closer or greater than 1 to extract factors from the given variables.

This step is to determine the method of factor extraction, number of initial factors and

the estimates of factors. Here Rotated Components Analysis is used to extract factors

to represent the data. For our study, we have 32 variables (statements rating varying

from 1 to 5) where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree.

The table 5.4.2 provides there are several methods available for rotating factor

matrix. The one used in this analysis is Varimax Rotation. This is the most commonly

used method and attempts to minimize the number of variables that have high

loadings on a factor. This should enhance the interpretability of the factors. The

Rotated Component Matrix using Varimax rotation is given in the above table, where

each factor identifies itself with a few set of variables.

103

Table 5.4.2: Rotated Component Matrix

Rotated Component Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Basic

Advantages

User-friendly interface 0.875

Retrieval possibilities 0.866

Search ability/search capabilities 0.807

Currency (Up-to-date information) 0.712

Convenience 0.661

Disadvantage

s

Perishable citation

0.889

Format that a large proportion of e-journal

use 0.863

Lack of standardized formats

0.818

Authenticity

0.772

Search engines ignores PDF files

0.543

Augmented

Purpose

To be up-to-date in the subject

0.828

Preparing for seminars, workshops etc

0.805

To get latest facts and statistics

0.776

To know the trends in Technical field

0.749

To get comprehensive knowledge and be

competitive in the field 0.734

To write Articles

0.503

104

Availability

and

accessibility

Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours a day)

0.861

Desktop availability

0.831

Free access

0.781

Multiuser access

0.602

Limitation of

accessing

system

Difficulty reading computer screens

0.841

Limitations of computer monitor

0.83

Often not included in indexing and

abstracting services 0.679

Strength in

accessing

network

Accuracy

0.851

Credibility

0.841

Connecting people

0.595

Expected

Facilitation

Requiring special equipment

0.804

Requiring training

0.782

Core purpose Teaching

0.904

Research

0.6

Value

addition

Downloading possibilities

0.662

Full text retrieval

0.595

Extraction Method: Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Rotation converged in 9 iterations.

105

Summary

Thus, the 32 variables in the data were reduced to 9 factor models and each

factor was identified and named with the corresponding variables as shown in the

above table. The factors are Basic Advantages; Disadvantages; Augmented Purpose;

Availability and accessibility; Limitation of accessing system; Strength in accessing

network; Expected Facilitation; Core purpose and Value addition.

Descriptive

This section gives the detail description of basic advantages, disadvantage,

augmented purpose, availability and accessibility, limitation of accessing system,

strength in accessing network, expected facilitation, core purpose and value addition

of accessing INDEST E-Resources.

5.4.3 Basic Advantages of using INDEST E-Resources

An attempt was made here to find out the basic advantages in using INDEST

E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs. Table 5.4.3 and figure 21 provides the

details of the Mean value and Standard deviatiion for the five attributes of Basic

Advantages. The mean value for the ‘Search ability/search capabilities’ is 4.31 and

the Standard Deviation is 0.79 followed by ‘Convenience’, ‘Currency (Up-to-date

information)’, ‘User-friendly interface’ and ‘Retrieval possibilities’ with mean value

of 4.31, 4.28, 4.25 and 4.25 and their respective Standard Deviation is 0.81, 0.8, 0.78

and 0.83. ‘F1 Basic Advantages’ has a mean value of 4.28 and the Standard Deviation

is 0.66.

Table 5.4.3: Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources

S/N Attributes N Mean SD

1 User-friendly interface 411 4.25 0.78

2 Retrieval possibilities 411 4.23 0.83

3 Search ability/search capabilities 411 4.31 0.79

4 Currency (Up-to-date information) 411 4.28 0.80

5 Convenience 411 4.31 0.81

Basic Advantages 411 4.28 0.66

106

Fig.21 Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources

5.4.4 Disadvantages in using INDEST E-Resources

An attempt was made here to find out the disadvantages in using INDEST E-

Resources by faculty of top seven IITs shown in table 5.4.4 and figure 22 shows the

mean value and the Standard Deviation for the five attributes of Disadvantages. ‘Lack


1.2 followed by ‘Format that a large proportion of e-journals use’ and ‘Perishable

Citation’ with mean value of 2.37 and 2.33 and their Standard Deviation is 1.03 and

1.06. ‘Authenticity’ has a mean value of 2.21 and the Standard deviation is 1.11.

‘Search engines ignores PDF files’ has the lowest mean value of 2.04 and the SD is

1.06. The mean value and Standard Deviation for ‘F2 Disadvantages’ is 2.28 and 0.92.

Table 5.4.4: Disadvantages in using INDEST E-Resources


1 Perishable citation 411 2.33 1.06

2 Format that a large proportion of e-journal use 411 2.37 1.03

3 Lack of standardized formats 411 2.55 1.20

4 Authenticity 411 2.21 1.11

5 Search engines ignores PDF files 411 2.04 1.06

Disadvantages 411 2.28 0.92

4.25

4.23

4.31

4.28

4.31

4.28

4.18

4.20

4.22

4.24

4.26

4.28

4.30

4.32

Mea

n S

core

107

Fig.22: Disadvantages in using INDEST E-Resources

5.4.5 Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources

An attempt was made here to find out the Augmented Purpose of using

INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs shown in table 5.4.5and figure 23

shows the details of the mean value and SD for the six attributes of augmented

purpose. ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’ has the mean value of 4.42 and the SD is

0.93 followed by ‘To write Articles’, ‘To know the trends in Technical field’, ‘To get

comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in the field’, ‘To get latest facts and

statistics’ and ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’ with mean value of 4.39, 4.2,

4.17, 4.11 and 4.08 and their respective SD is 0.78, 1.09, 1.01, 1.01 and 0.97. ‘F3

augmented Purpose’ has a mean value of 4.24 and the SD is 0.75.

Table 5.4.5: Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources


1 To be up-to-date in the subject 411 4.42 0.93

2 Preparing for seminars, workshops etc 411

4.08 0.97

3 To get latest facts and statistics 411

4.11 1.01

4 To know the trends in Technical field 411

4.20 1.09

5 To get comprehensive knowledge and be competitive

in the field

411 4.17 1.01

6 To write Articles 411 4.39 0.78

Augmented Purpose 411 4.24 0.75

2.33 2.37 2.55

2.21 2.04

2.28

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Perishable citation Format that a

large proportion

of e-journal use

Lack of

standardized

formats

Authenticity Search engines

ignores PDF files

F2 Disadvantages

Mea

n S

core

108

Fig.23: Augmented Purpose for using INDEST E-Resources

5.4.6 Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources

This show about availability and accessibility of INDEST E-Resources shown

in the table 5.4.6 and figure 24 show the mean value and the Standard Deviation for

the four attributes of ‘Availability and Accessibility’. ‘Desktop availability’ has the

highest mean value of 4.29 and Standard Deviation is 0.98. The mean value for

‘Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’, ‘Free access’ and ‘Multiuser access’ is 4.26,

4.06 and 3.49 and their respective Standard Deviation is 1.04, 1.04 and 1.24

respectively. ‘F4 Availability and Accessibility’ has a mean value of 4.03 and the

Standard Deviation is 0.86.

Table 5.4.6: Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources


1 Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours a day) 411 4.26 1.04

2 Desktop availability 411 4.29 0.98

3 Free access 411 4.06 1.04

4 Multiuser access 411 3.49 1.24

Availability and accessibility 411 4.03 0.86

4.42

4.08 4.11

4.20 4.17

4.39

4.24

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

4.40

4.50

To be up-to-date

in the subject

Preparing for

seminars,

workshops etc

To get latest facts

and statistics

To know the

trends in

Technical field

To get

comprehensive

knowledge and

be competitive in

the field

To write Articles F3 Augmented

Purpose

Mea

n S

core

109

Fig.24: Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources

5.4.7 Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources

The below table 5.4.7 and figure 25 provide the details of the mean value and

Standard Deviation for the three attributes of ‘Limitations of accessing’. ‘Difficulty

reading computer screens’ has the highest mean value of 2.56 and the Standard

Deviation is 1.35 followed by ‘Often not included in indexing and abstracting

services’ and ‘Limitations of computer monitor’ with mean value of 2.47 and 2.37 and

their Standard Deviation is 1.34. ‘F5 Limitation of accessing’ has a mean value of

2.47 and the Standard Deviation is 1.19.

Table 5.4.7: Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources


1 Difficulty reading computer screens 411 2.56 1.35

2 Limitations of computer monitor 411

2.37 1.34

3 Often not included in indexing and abstracting services 411

2.47 1.34

Limitation of accessing 411 2.47 1.19

4.26 4.29 4.06

3.49

4.03

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Prompt accessibility (7/24

hours a day)

Desktop availability Free access Multiuser access F4 Availability and

accessibility

Mea

n S

core

110

Fig.25: Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources

5.4.8 Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources network

The attempt was made to know the strength in accessing INDEST E-Resources

networks by the faculty of to seven IITs shown in the table 5.4.8 and figure 26

provides the details of the mean value and Standard Deviation for the three attributes

of ‘Strength in accessing network’. ‘Accuracy’ has the highest mean value of 4.01 and

the Standard Deviation is 0.82 followed by ‘Credibility’ and ‘Connecting people’ with

mean value of 4 and 3.4 and their respective Standard Deviation is 0.88 and 1.19. ‘F6

Strength in accessing network’ has a mean value of 3.81 and the Standard Deviation is

0.78.

Table 5.4.8: Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources network


1 Accuracy 411 4.01 0.82

2 Credibility 411 4.00 0.88

3 Connecting people 411 3.40 1.19

Strength in accessing network 411 3.81 0.78

2.56

2.37

2.47 2.47

2.25

2.30

2.35

2.40

2.45

2.50

2.55

2.60

Difficulty reading computer screens Limitations of computer monitor Often not included in indexing and

abstracting services

F5 Limitation of accessing system

Mea

n S

core

111

Fig.26: Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources network

5.4.9 Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources

The below details shows the expected facilitation in accessing INDEST E-

Resources table 5.4.9 and figure 27 show the mean value and Standard Deviation for

the two attributes of ‘Expected Facilitation’. ‘Requiring special equipment’ has the

highest mean value of 2.18 and the Standard Deviation is 1.16 followed by ‘Requiring

Training’ with mean value of 2.15 and the Standard Deviation is 1.05. ‘F7 Expected

Facilitation’ has a mean value of 2.16 and the Standard Deviation is 1.02.

Table 5.4.9: Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources


1 Requiring special equipment 411 2.18 1.16

2 Requiring training 411 2.15 1.05

Expected Facilitation 411 2.16 1.02

Fig. 27: Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources

4.01 4.00

3.40

3.81

3.00

3.10

3.20

3.30

3.40

3.50

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

Accuracy Credibility Connecting people F6 Strength in accessing

network

Mea

n S

core

2.18

2.15

2.16

2.13

2.14

2.14

2.15

2.15

2.16

2.16

2.17

2.17

2.18

2.18

Requiring special equipment Requiring training F7 Expected Facilitation

Mea

n S

core

112

5.4.10 Core Purposes of using INDEST E-Resources

With regard to the Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources is shown in

table 5.4.10 and figure 28 provides the details of the mean value and Standard

Deviation for the two attributes of ‘Core Purpose’. ‘Teaching’ has represents with the

mean value of 3.89 with a corresponding Standard Deviation is 0.97 followed by

‘Research’ with a highest mean value of 4.77 with a corresponding Standard

Deviation is 0.52. ‘F8 Core purpose’ has a mean value of 4.35 and the Standard

Deviation is 0.64.

Table 5.4.10: Core Purposes of using INDEST E-Resources


1 Teaching 411

3.89 0.97

2 Research 411

4.77 0.52

Core purpose 411 4.35 0.64

Fig. 28: Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources

5.4.11 Value Addition in accessing INDEST E-Resources

The below Table 5.4.11 and figure 29 provide the details of the mean value

and Standard Deviation for the two attributes of ‘Value addition’. ‘Full text retrieval’

has the highest mean value of 4.44 and the Standard Deviation is 0.76 followed by

‘downloading possibilities’ with mean value of 4.40 and Standard Deviation is 0.67.

‘F9 Value addition’ has an average mean value of 4.42 and the Standard Deviation is

0.66.

3.89

4.77

4.35

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Teaching Research F8 Core purpose

Mea

n S

core

113

Table 5.4.11: Value Addition in accessing INDEST E-Resources


1 Downloading possibilities 411 4.40 0.67

2 Full text retrieval 411 4.44 0.76

Value addition 411 4.42 0.66

Fig. 29: Value Addition in accessing INDEST E-Resources

5.4.12 Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources

With regard to the satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources shown in the

table 5.4.12 and figure 30 provides the details of the mean value and Standard

Deviation for the seven attributes of ‘Satisfaction’. The highest mean value is for

‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-Resources’4.15 and the Standard

Deviation are 0.9. ‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the library’ has a

mean value of 4.01 and the Standard Deviation is 0.98 followed by ‘Satisfaction

obtained from using INDEST E-Resources’, ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST

E-Resources in your library’, ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’,

‘How far INDEST E-Resources available in library enable you to meet your needs’

and ‘Back volumes of INDEST E-Resources available in library’ with mean value of

3.96, 3.86, 3.78, 3.78 and 3.58 and their respective Standard Deviation is 0.8, 0.99,

4.40

4.44

4.42

4.38

4.39

4.40

4.41

4.42

4.43

4.44

4.45

Downloading possibilities Full text retrieval F9 Value addition

Mea

n S

core

114

0.99, 1.07 and 1.07 respectively. ‘Satisfaction’ has an average mean value of 3.88 and

the Standard Deviation is 0.85.

Table 5.4.12: Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources


1 Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the

library 411 4.01 0.98

2 Subject coverage of available INDEST E-Resources

in your library 411 3.86 0.99

3 Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library 411 3.78 0.99

4 Back volumes of INDEST E-Resources available in

library 411 3.58 1.07

5 How far INDEST E-Resources available in library

enable you to meet your needs 411 3.78 1.07

6 Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-

Resources 411 3.96 0.80

7 Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-

Resources 411 4.15 0.90

Satisfaction 411 3.88 0.85

Fig.30: Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources

4.01

3.86

3.78

3.58

3.78

3.96

4.15

3.88

3.20

3.30

3.40

3.50

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

RequiredINDEST

E-Resourcessubscribed by the

library

Subject coverage of

available INDESTE-Resources in

your library

Number of

INDEST E-Resources available

in library

Back volumes of

INDEST E-Resources available

in library

How far INDEST

E-Resourcesavailable in library

enable you to meetyour needs

Satisfaction

obtained from usingINDEST E-

Resources

Infrastructure

available to AccessINDEST E-

Resources

Satisfaction

Mea

n S

core

115

5.4.13Summary

This section deals with reliability test for different factors, ways and means of

obtaining and using, skills required, purpose of using, limitation, availability and

accessibility, core purpose and satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources by faculty

members of top seven IITs. ‘Satisfaction’ has the highest Cronbach's Alpha value and

‘F6 Strength in accessing network’ has the lowest Cronbach’s Alpha value.(Table

5.4.1), The cumulative variance extracted is 77.06%. The sums of square of all the

variables in given factors are called the Eigen values. If Eigen value is greater than 1,

it becomes factor. In similar pattern, sum of square of a variable across factors are

called communalities. As a threshold level, communalities should be greater than

5.The 32 variables in the data were reduced to 9 factor models and each factor was

identified and named with the corresponding variables as shown in the above table.

The factors are Basic Advantages; Disadvantages; Augmented Purpose; Availability

and accessibility; Limitation of accessing system; Strength in accessing network;

Expected Facilitation; Core purpose and Value addition. (Table 5.4.2) ‘Search

ability/search capabilities’ have highest mean value 4.31 and the Standard Deviation is

0.79 followed by ‘Convenience. Basic Advantages’ has a mean value of 4.28 and the

Standard Deviation is 0.66(Table 5.4.3). ‘Lack of Standardized formats’ has the

highest mean value of 2.55 and Standard Deviation is 1.2 and ‘Search engines ignores

PDF files’ has the lowest mean value of 2.04 and the SD is 1.06. The mean value and

Standard Deviation for ‘Disadvantages’ is 2.28 and 0.92 (Table 5.4.4). ‘To be up-to-

date in the subject’ has the highest mean value of 4.42 and the SD is 0.93 and

‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc has the lowest mean value of4.08 and the SD

is 0.97. Augmented Purpose’ has a mean value of 4.24 and the SD is 0.75 (Table

5.4.5). ‘Desktop availability’ has the highest mean value of 4.29 and Standard

Deviation is 0.98 and ‘Multiuser access’ has the lowest mean value of 3.49 and the SD

is 1.24. F4 Availability and Accessibility’ has a mean value of 4.03 and the Standard

Deviation is 0.86 (Table 5.4.6). ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’ has the highest

mean value of 2.56 and the Standard Deviation is 1.35 and ‘Limitation of accessing

system’ has a mean value of 2.47 and the Standard Deviation is 1.19.(Table 5.4.7)

‘Accuracy’ has the highest mean value of 4.01 and the Standard Deviation is 0.82 and

‘Strength in accessing network’ has a mean value of 3.81 and the Standard Deviation

is 0.78.(Table 5.4.8) ‘Requiring special equipment’ has the highest mean value of 2.18

116

and the Standard Deviation is 1.16 and ‘Expected Facilitation’ has a mean value of

2.16 and the Standard Deviation is 1.02.(Table 5.4.9) ‘Research’ with a highest mean

value of 4.77 with a corresponding Standard Deviation is 0.52. ‘Core purpose’ has a

mean value of 4.35 and the Standard Deviation is 0.64.(Table 5.4.10) Full text

retrieval’ has the highest mean value of 4.44 and the Standard Deviation is 0.76 and

‘Value addition’ has an average mean value of 4.42 and the Standard Deviation is

0.66.(Table 5.4.11) The highest mean value is for ‘Infrastructure available to Access

INDEST E-Resources’4.15 and the Standard Deviation are 0.9 and Satisfaction’ has

an average mean value of 3.88 and the Standard Deviation is 0.85. (Table 5.4.12)

117

SECTION 5

IMPORTANCE OF INDEST E-RESOURCES

5.5.0 Introduction

Section 5 deals with Importance of INDEST E-Resources; Reading pattern of

INDEST E-Resources by IIT faculty; INDEST E-Resources Availability to the faculty

of top seven IITs.

5.5.1 Importance of INDEST E-Resources

The below Table 5.5.1 and figure 31 provide the details of the mean value and

Standard Deviation for the two attributes of ‘Importance’. ‘Do you think that the

information content of INDEST E-Resources is useful’ has a mean value of 4.58 and

the Standard Deviation is 0.74 followed by ‘Importance of the INDEST E-Resources

for your research’ with mean value of 4.57 and Standard Deviation is 0.74.

‘Importance’ has a mean value of 4.58 and the Standard Deviation is 0.71.

Table 5.5.1: Importance of INDEST E-Resources


1 Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for your

research 411 4.57 0.74

2 Do you think that the information content of INDEST E-

Resources is useful 411 4.58 0.74

Importance 411 4.58 0.71

Figure 31 Importance of INDEST E-Resources

4.57

4.58

4.58

4.57

4.57

4.57

4.57

4.57

4.57

4.58

4.58

4.58

4.58

4.58

Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for your

research

Do you think that the information content of

INDEST E-Resources is useful

Importance

Mea

n S

core

118

5.5.2 Reading pattern of INDEST E-Resources by IIT faculty

The reading pattern of INDEST E-Resources journals by faculty of top seven

IIT’s shown in table 5.5.2 and graph32 provide the details of the mean value and SD

for the two attributes of ‘Read Electronic and Read Print’. Read Electronic has the

highest mean value of 4.20 and the SD is 0.89. Read Print mean value is 3.23 and the

SD is 1.16.

Table 5.5.2: Reading pattern of INDEST journals by IIT faulty


1 Read electronic(on monitor) 411 4.20 0.89

2 Read print out 411 3.23 1.16

Figure 32Reading patterns of INDEST journals by IIT faulty

5.5.3 INDEST E-Resources Availability

The availability of INDEST E-Resources used by faculty of IIT’s shown in

table 5.5.3 provides the mean value and the standard deviation for thirty three

attributes. ‘Elsevier Science Direct’ has the highest mean value of 4.3 and SD is 1.14,

‘Springer Link’ has the second highest mean value of 3.74 and SD is 1.29, ‘Scopus

Database’ has the third highest mean value of 3.73 and SD is 1.28, ‘Taylor and

Francis’ has the fourth highest mean value of 3.41 and SD is 1.24 , followed by ‘Web

of Science’, ‘IEEE/IEE Electronic Library Online (IEL)’ with mean value of 3.74,

Read electronic(on monitor) Read print out

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

119

3.73, 3.41, 3.3 and 2.88 and the SD is 1.29, 1.28, 1.25, 1.4 and 1.62 respectively. The

mean value and SD for ‘JSTOR Through NME-ICT Project’ is 2.8 and 1.43 followed

by ‘Nature’, ‘SciFinder Scholar’, ‘AIP Journals’, ‘APS Journals’ and ‘ASME Journals

( + A M R)’ with mean value of 2.74, 2.72, 2.52, 2.5 and 2.39 and their respective SD

is 1.4, 1.47, 1.47, 1.57 and 1.52 respectively. The mean values for ‘ASCE Journals’,

‘Indian Standards’, ‘Annual Review’, ‘COMPENDEX on EI Village’, ‘Emerald Full-

text’ and ‘EBSCO Databases’ is 2.26, 2.26, 2.25, 2.14, 2.13 and 2.1; their respective

SD is 1.57, 1.49, 1.34, 1.3, 1.47 and 1.44. The mean value for ‘IET Digital Library’ is

2.1 and SD is 1.41 followed by ‘ACM Digital Library’, ‘INSPEC on EI Village’, ‘J-

Gate Custom Content for Consortia (JCCC)’, ‘McGraw Hill’s Access Engineering’,

‘Optical Society of America’ and ‘ProQuest Science (formerly ASTP)’ with mean

value of 2.09, 1.94, 1.91, 1.87, 1.78 and 1.77 their respective SD is 1.45, 1.35, 1.29,

1.06, 1.31 and 1.22. The mean value for ‘INSIGHT ‘ is 1.71 and SD is 1.13 followed

by ‘MathSciNet’, ‘IEC Standards’, ‘ICE+ Thomas Telford’, ‘ABI / Inform Complete’,

‘Euromonitor (GMID)’, ‘Capitaline’ and ‘CRIS INFAC Ind. Information’ with mean

value of 1.67, 1.57, 1.55, 1.51, 1.29, 1.26 and 1.21 and SD is 1.08, 1.08, 1.16, 1.05,

0.78, 0.69 and 0.59 respectively.

Table 5.5.3: INDEST E-Resources Availability

S/N Items N=411

Mean SD

1 Elsevier Science Direct 4.3 1.14

2 Springer Link 3.74 1.29

3 Scopus Database 3.73 1.28

4 Taylor and Francis 3.41 1.24

5 Web of Science 3.3 1.4

6 IEEE/IEE Electronic Library Online (IEL) 2.88 1.62

7 JSTOR Through NME-ICT Project 2.8 1.43

8 Nature 2.74 1.4

9 SciFinder Scholar 2.72 1.47

10 AIP Journals 2.52 1.47

11 APS Journals 2.5 1.57

12 ASME Journals ( + A M R ) 2.39 1.52

13 ASCE Journals 2.26 1.57

120

14 Indian Standards 2.26 1.49

15 Annual Review 2.25 1.34

16 COMPENDEX on EI Village 2.14 1.3

17 Emerald Full-text 2.13 1.47

18 EBSCO Databases 2.1 1.44

19 IET Digital Library 2.1 1.41

20 ACM Digital Library 2.09 1.45

21 INSPEC on EI Village 1.94 1.35

22 J-Gate Custom Content for Consortia

(JCCC) 1.91 1.29

23 McGraw Hill’s Access Engineering 1.87 1.06

24 Optical Society of America 1.78 1.31

25 ProQuest Science ( formerly ASTP ) 1.77 1.22

26 INSIGHT 1.71 1.13

27 MathSciNet 1.67 1.08

28 IEC Standards 1.57 1.08

29 ICE+ Thomas Telford 1.55 1.16

30 ABI / Inform Complete 1.51 1.05

31 Euromonitor (GMID) 1.29 0.78

32 Capitaline 1.26 0.69

33 CRIS INFAC Ind. Information 1.21 0.59

5.5.4 Summary

This section deals with Importance of INDEST E-Resources, reading pattern

of INDEST E-Resources, INDEST E-Resources Availability to the faculty of top

seven IITs. The summary of section 5.5 indicates that Importance of INDEST has a

mean value of 4.58 and the Standard Deviation is 0.71. (Table 5.5.1), Read Electronic

has the highest mean value of 4.20 and the SD is 0.89 (Table 5.5.2), Elsevier Science

Direct has the highest mean value of 4.3 and SD is 1.14(Table 5.5.3)

121

SECTION 6

IIT WISE USE OF INDEST E-RESOURCES BY FACULTY OF IITs

5.6.0 Introduction

This section 6 deals with the testing of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Basic

Advantages, Disadvantages, Augmented Purpose, Availability and Accessibility,

Limitation of Accessing, Strength in Accessing, Expected Facilitation, Core Purpose,

Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance, Reading pattern, in accessing/using

INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs.

Hypothesis - I

Ho: There is no significant difference on Perception on INDEST usage Vs faculty

members of IITs

Ha: There is significant difference on Perception of INDEST usage Vs faculty

members of IITs

5.6.1 IIT wise Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources

To prove the hypothesis, ANOVA is used, it is a mean based statistical test,

used for testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent

variable and more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words,

to understand statistical significance differences between or among two or more

groups or level of independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the five

attributes of Basic Advantage that are the dependent variables such as ‘User-friendly

interface’, ‘Retrieval possibilities’, ‘Search ability/search capabilities’, ‘Currency (Up-

to-date information)’ and ‘Convenience’ are computed to understand the perception of

respondents classified based on the place of the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’,

‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT Roorkee’) which are

Independent variables.

The basic advantages in using INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of top

seven Indian Institutes of Technology is shown in table 5.6.1 shows the perception of

the respondents categorized based on the place of IIT. The average score of ‘User-

friendly interface’ given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.12, IIT Bombay

is 4.34, IIT Madras is 4.19, IIT Kanpur is 3.85, IIT Delhi is 4.32, IIT Guwahati is 4.41

and IIT Roorkee is 4.41. The F value is 2.884 and significant value is 0.009 since it is

<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘User-friendly interface’

does impact across the different level of the IIT.

122

To ascertain the impact of ‘Retrieval possibilities’ in the perception of the

respondents’ categorized based on the place of the IIT. The average score given by the

respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 3.95, IIT Bombay is 4.48, IIT Madras is 4.06, IIT

Kanpur is 3.74, IIT Delhi is 4.53, IIT Guwahati is 4.33 and IIT Roorkee is 4.25. The F

value is 6.048 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is

significant which implies that respondents from different IIT seem to perceive in

different ways with regard to ‘Retrieval possibilities’.

The mean value for ‘Searchability/search capabilities’ given by the



value is 1.575 and significant value is 0.153 since it is >.05 the mean difference

existing between respondents of different IIT is statistically not significant at 5%

level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome

based on ‘Searchability/search capabilities’.

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Currency (Up-to-date

information)’ as given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.26, IIT Bombay is

4.46, IIT Madras is 4.17, IIT Kanpur is 4.45, IIT Delhi is 4, IIT Guwahati is 4.15 and

IIT Roorkee is 4.41. The F value is 2.506 and significant value is 0.022 since it is <.05

the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Currency (Up-to-date

information)’ does impact on the whole across the group categorized based on the

place of IIT.

The average score of ‘Convenience’ given by the respondents from IIT

Kharagpur is 4.12, IIT Bombay is 4.63, IIT Madras is 4.21, IIT Kanpur is 4.03, IIT

Delhi is 4.68, IIT Guwahati is 4.2 and IIT Roorkee is 4.03. The F value is 6.228 and

significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which

implies that ‘Convenience’ does impact across the different place of IIT.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Basic Advantages’ in the perception of the

respondents’ categorized based on the place of the IIT. The average score for ‘Basic

Advantages’ as given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.13, IIT Bombay is

4.45, IIT Madras is 4.18, IIT Kanpur is 4.05, IIT Delhi is 4.42, IIT Guwahati is 4.28

and IIT Roorkee is 4.31. The F value is 2.766 and significant value is 0.012 since it is

<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that respondents of different IIT

seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Basic Advantages’.

123

Table 5.6.1: IIT wise Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources

Name of the IIT

IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR

S/N N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34 F

value

P

value

1 User-friendly

interface

Mean 4.12 4.34 4.19 3.85 4.32 4.41 4.41 2.884 0.009*

SD 0.79 0.64 0.79 1.09 0.64 0.73 0.8

2 Retrieval

possibilities

Mean 3.95 4.48 4.06 3.74 4.53 4.33 4.25 6.048 0.000*

SD 0.9 0.62 0.8 1.12 0.71 0.8 0.8

3 Searchability/

search capabilities

Mean 4.23 4.35 4.21 4.1 4.56 4.31 4.47 1.575 0.153

SD 0.81 0.63 0.83 1.22 0.7 0.69 0.8

4 Currency (Up-to-

date information)

Mean 4.26 4.46 4.17 4.45 4 4.15 4.41 2.506 0.022*

SD 0.76 0.52 0.83 0.87 0.97 0.91 0.8

5 Convenience Mean 4.12 4.63 4.21 4.03 4.68 4.2 4.03

6.228 0.000* SD 0.7 0.61 0.83 1.17 0.59 0.75 0.86

6 Basic Advantages Mean 4.13 4.45 4.18 4.05 4.42 4.28 4.31

2.766 0.012 SD 0.61 0.49 0.72 0.91 0.63 0.6 0.72

*Significant at 5% level

Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR=

IIT Roorkee

124

5.6.2 IIT wise Disadvantages in accessing INDEST E-Resources

To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for

testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and

more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand

statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of

independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the five attributes of

Disadvantage that are the dependent variables such as ‘Perishable citation’ , ‘Format

that a large proportion of e-journal use’, ‘Lack of standardized formats’,

‘Authenticity’ and ‘Search engines ignores PDF files’ are computed to understand the

perception of respondents classified based on the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’,



The table 5.6.2 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on

the IIT. The average score of ‘Perishable citation’ given by the respondents from IIT




implies that ‘Perishable citation’ does impact across the different place of the IIT.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal use’ in

the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score

given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 2.86, IIT Bombay is 2.67, IIT Madras

is 2.44, IIT Kanpur is 2.16, IIT Delhi is 1.93, IIT Guwahati is 2 and IIT Roorkee is

1.77. The F value is 7.605 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean

difference is significant which implies that respondents from different IIT seem to

perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal

use’.

The mean value for ‘Lack of standardized formats’ given by the respondents

from IIT Kharagpur is 2.86, IIT Bombay is 2.82, IIT Madras is 2.9, IIT Kanpur is

2.61, IIT Delhi is 2.06, IIT Guwahati is 2.12 and IIT Roorkee is 1.69. The F value is

8.323 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing

between respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows

125

that a significant effect is evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Lack of

standardized formats’.

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Authenticity’ as given

by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 2.55, IIT Bombay is 2.33, IIT Madras is

2.16, IIT Kanpur is 2.1, IIT Delhi is 2.03, IIT Guwahati is 2.07 and IIT Roorkee is

2.09. The F value is 1.318 and significant value is 0.248 since it is >.05 the mean

difference is not significant which implies that ‘Authenticity’ does not impact across

the different IIT.

The average score of ‘Search engines ignores PDF files’ given by the




significant which implies that ‘Search engines ignores PDF files’ does impact across

the different IIT.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Disadvantages’ in the perception of the

respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score for ‘Disadvantages’ as


is 2.43, IIT Kanpur is 2.28, IIT Delhi is 2.04, IIT Guwahati is 1.84 and IIT Roorkee is


difference is significant which implies that respondents of different IIT seem to

perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Disadvantages’.

126

Table 5.6.2: IIT wise Disadvantages in accessing INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Name of the IIT F

value

P

value IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR

N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34

1 Perishable citation Mean 2.61 2.62 2.51 2.1 2.03 1.94 1.94 5.105 0.000*

SD 1.2 1.04 1 1.04 0.77 0.92 1.16

2

Format that a large

proportion of e-

journal use

Mean 2.86 2.67 2.44 2.16 1.93 2 1.77 7.605 0.000*

SD 1.12 0.99 1.04 0.97 0.7 0.84 0.95

3

Lack of

standardized

Formats

Mean 2.86 2.82 2.9 2.61 2.06 2.12 1.69 8.323 0.000*

SD 1.28 1.06 1.09 1.33 0.93 1.29 1

4 Authenticity Mean 2.55 2.33 2.16 2.1 2.03 2.07 2.09

1.318 0.248 SD 0.97 1.2 0.88 1.19 0.98 1.34 1.12

5 Search engines

ignores PDF files

Mean 2.1 2.27 2.13 2.45 2.06 1.48 1.77 5.247 0.000*

SD 0.91 1.07 1.06 1.46 0.75 0.85 1.02

6 Disadvantages Mean 2.59 2.54 2.43 2.28 2.04 1.84 1.9

6.704 0.000* SD 0.97 0.89 0.83 1.07 0.66 0.81 1.01


Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee

127

5.6.3 IIT wise Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources





independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the six attributes of

Augmented Purpose that are the dependent variables such as ‘To be up-to-date in the

subject’ , ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’, ‘To get latest facts and statistics’,

‘To know the trends in Technical field’, ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be

competitive in the field’ and ‘To write Articles’ are computed to understand the

perception of respondents classified based on the IITs (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT

Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT Roorkee’)

which are Independent variables.


the IITs. The average score of ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’ as given by the




significant which implies that ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’ does impact across the

different IITs.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’ in the

perception of the respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score given


4.09, IIT Kanpur is 4.09, IIT Delhi is 4.31, IIT Guwahati is 4.35 and IIT Roorkee is


difference is significant which implies that respondents from different IIT seem to

perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’.

To ascertain the impact of ‘To get latest facts and statistics’ in the perception

of the respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score given by the




128


different ways with regard to ‘To get latest facts and statistics’.

The mean value for ‘To know the trends in Technical field’ as given by the



value is 6.733 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference

existing between respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at 5% level.

This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘To

know the trends in Technical field’.

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘To get comprehensive

knowledge and be competitive in the field’ as given by the respondents from IIT




implies that ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in the field’ does

impact across the different IITs.

The average score of ‘To write Articles’ as given by the respondents from IIT



significant value is 0.277 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which

implies that ‘To write Articles’ does not impact across the groups categorized based

on the IIT.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Augmented Purpose’ in the perception of the

respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score for ‘Augmented

Purpose’ as given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.24, IIT Bombay is 4.26,

IIT Madras is 4.26, IIT Kanpur is 4.22, IIT Delhi is 4.46, IIT Guwahati is 4.46 and IIT

Roorkee is 3.53. The F value is 7.203 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the

mean difference is significant which implies that respondents of different IIT seem to

perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Augmented Purpose’.

129

Table 5.6.3 IIT wise Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Name of the IIT F

value

P


N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34

1 To be up-to-date in the subject Mean 4.38 4.37 4.56 4.36 4.52 4.79 3.42

9.663 0.000* SD 0.54 0.8 0.65 0.82 1 0.48 1.86


workshops etc

Mean 4.24 3.97 4.09 4.09 4.31 4.35 3.29 5.429 0.000*

SD 0.58 0.93 0.7 1.06 1.15 0.86 1.53

3 To get latest facts and statistics Mean 4.36 3.84 4.18 4.18 4.55 4.23 3.45

5.381 0.000* SD 0.73 1.08 0.81 0.95 0.9 0.9 1.5

4 To know the trends in Technical

field

Mean 4.1 4.28 4.43 4.16 4.24 4.4 3.16 6.733 0.000*

SD 0.73 0.81 0.72 1.11 1.25 1.15 1.79

5

To get comprehensive

Knowledge and be competitive

in the field

Mean 4.14 4.36 3.87 4.25 4.45 4.68 3.19 12.261 0.000*

SD 0.68 0.76 0.98 0.95 0.97 0.5 1.69

6 To write Articles Mean 4.26 4.32 4.43 4.31 4.66 4.35 4.5

1.257 0.277 SD 0.49 0.93 0.65 1.06 0.7 0.81 0.51

7 Augmented Purpose Mean 4.24 4.26 4.26 4.22 4.46 4.46 3.53

7.203 0.000* SD 0.49 0.69 0.54 0.82 0.87 0.49 1.29



130

5.6.4 IIT wise Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources






Availability and accessibility that are the dependent variables such as ‘Prompt

accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’ , ‘Desktop availability’, ‘Free access’ and ‘Multiuser

access’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based on

the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT

Guwahati’ and ‘IIT Roorkee’) which are Independent variables.

The below table 5.6.4 shows the perception of the respondents categorized

based on the place of IIT. The average score of ‘Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours a

day)’ given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.24, IIT Bombay is 4.51, IIT

Madras is 4.37, IIT Kanpur is 4.47, IIT Delhi is 3.75, IIT Guwahati is 4.57 and IIT

Roorkee is 3.03. The F value is 13.704 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05

the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours

a day)’ does impact across the different level of IIT.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Desktop availability’ in the perception of the

respondents’ categorized based on the IITs. The average score given by the


Kanpur is 4.47, IIT Delhi is 4, IIT Guwahati is 4.59 and IIT Roorkee is 3.03. The F



different ways with regard to ‘Desktop availability’.

The mean value for ‘Free access’ given by the respondents from IIT



significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between

respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a

significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on free access.

131

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Multiuser access’ as


is 3.76, IIT Kanpur is 3, IIT Delhi is 3.81, IIT Guwahati is 3.02 and IIT Roorkee is


difference is significant which implies that ‘Multiuser access’ does impact across the

different IIT.

The average score of ‘Availability and accessibility’ given by the respondents



12.934 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant

which implies that ‘Availability and accessibility’ does impact across the different

level of IIT.

132

Table 5.6.4 IIT wise Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Name of the IIT F

value

P


N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34

1 Prompt accessibility (7/24

hours a day)

Mean 4.24 4.51 4.37 4.47 3.75 4.57 3.03 13.704 0.000*

SD 0.91 0.8 0.92 0.62 1.32 0.56 1.63

2 Desktop availability Mean 4.44 4.56 4.26 4.47 4 4.59 3.03

14.986 0.000* SD 0.93 0.81 0.77 0.57 0.98 0.76 1.49

3 Free access Mean 4.19 4.32 4.17 4.34 3.59 4.15 2.91

11.281 0.000* SD 1.07 0.96 0.72 0.7 0.98 1.11 1.28

4 Multiuser access Mean 3.81 3.69 3.76 3 3.81 3.02 2.88

6.177 0.000* SD 1.18 1.15 1 1.46 0.83 1.4 1.29

5 Availability and

accessibility

Mean 4.17 4.27 4.15 4.08 3.78 4.11 2.96 12.934 0.000*

SD 0.88 0.74 0.69 0.62 0.89 0.57 1.29



IIT Roorkee

133

5.6.5 IIT wise Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources





independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the three attributes of

‘Limitation of accessing system’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Difficulty

reading computer screens’ , ‘Limitations of computer monitor’ and ‘Often not

included in indexing and abstracting services’ are computed to understand the

perception of respondents classified based on the place of the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’,

‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT

Roorkee’) which are Independent variables.


the place of IIT. The average score of ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’ given by

the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 3.05, IIT Bombay is 2.56, IIT Madras is 2.59,

IIT Kanpur is 2.16, IIT Delhi is 2.55, IIT Guwahati is 2.31 and IIT Roorkee is 2.66.

The F value is 1.89 and significant value is 0.081 since it is >.05 the mean difference

is not significant which implies that ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’ does not

impact across the different level of IIT.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Limitations of computer monitor’ in the perception

of the respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score given by the



value is 1.835 and significant value is 0.091 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not

significant which implies that respondents from different IIT do not seem to perceive

in similar ways with regard to ‘Limitations of computer monitor’.

The mean value for ‘Often not included in indexing and abstracting services’




difference existing between respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at

134

5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome

based on ‘Often not included in indexing and abstracting services’.

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Limitation of

accessing system’ as given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 2.73, IIT

Bombay is 2.6, IIT Madras is 2.56, IIT Kanpur is 2.32, IIT Delhi is 2.63, IIT

Guwahati is 2.08 and IIT Roorkee is 2.22. The F value is 2.267 and significant value

is 0.037 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that

‘Limitation of accessing system’ does impact across the different level of IIT.

135

Table 5.6.5 IIT wise Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Name of the IIT F

value

P


N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34


computer screens

Mean 3.05 2.56 2.59 2.16 2.55 2.31 2.66 1.89 0.081

SD 1.45 1.36 1.42 1.13 1.12 1.32 1.33

2 Limitations of computer

monitor

Mean 2.32 2.6 2.58 2.03 2.42 2.14 2.03 1.835 0.091

SD 1.01 1.54 1.4 1.13 1.12 1.34 1.26

3

Often not included in

indexing and abstracting

services

Mean 2.81 2.66 2.54 2.56 2.91 1.72 2.11 5.284 0.000*

SD 1.55 1.09 1.37 1.62 1.66 0.91 1.03

4 Limitation of accessing Mean 2.73 2.6 2.56 2.32 2.63 2.08 2.22

2.267 0.037* SD 1.27 1.11 1.34 1.17 1.15 1.06 0.97



136

5.6.6 IIT wise Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources






‘Strength in accessing network’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Accuracy’,

‘Credibility’ and ‘Connecting people’ are computed to understand the perception of

respondents classified based on the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’,

‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT Roorkee’) which are Independent

variables.


the IIT. The average score of ‘Accuracy’ given by the respondents from IIT




implies that ‘Accuracy’ does impact across the different level of IIT.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Credibility’ in the perception of the respondents’

categorized based on the IIT. The average score given by the respondents from IIT


Delhi is 4, IIT Guwahati is 4.08 and IIT Roorkee is 4. The F value is 4.421 and


implies that respondents from different IIT seem to perceive in different ways with

regard to ‘Credibility’.

The mean value for ‘Connecting people’ given by the respondents from IIT





significant effect is evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Connecting people’.

137

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Strength in accessing

network’ as given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.1, IIT Bombay is 3.98,

IIT Madras is 3.46, IIT Kanpur is 3.51, IIT Delhi is 4, IIT Guwahati is 3.78 and IIT


mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Strength in accessing’ does impact

across the different levels of IIT.

138

Table 5.6.6 IIT wise Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Name of the IIT F

value

P


N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34

1 Accuracy

Mean 4.35 4.19 3.76 3.67 4.18 3.92 4.03 4.9 0.000*

SD 0.78 0.71 0.64 1.03 0.8 0.97 0.82

2 Credibility

Mean 4.26 4.2 3.63 3.87 4 4.08 4 4.421 0.000*

SD 0.58 0.73 0.85 1.15 1.13 0.81 0.95

3 Connecting people

Mean 3.67 3.55 3.03 2.93 3.82 3.29 3.77 4.372 0.000*

SD 1.2 1.21 1.21 1.14 1.27 0.96 1.02

4

Strength in accessing

network

Mean 4.1 3.98 3.46 3.51 4 3.78 3.94 6.305 0.000*

SD 0.69 0.69 0.7 0.95 0.88 0.68 0.87



139

5.6.7 IIT wise Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources





independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of

‘Expected Facilitation’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Requiring special

equipment’ and ‘Requiring training’ are computed to understand the perception of

respondents classified based on the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’,


variables.


based on the IIT. The average score of ‘Requiring special equipment’ given by the




significant which implies that ‘Requiring special equipment’ does not impact across

the different levels of IIT.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Requiring training’ in the perception of the

respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score given by the





different ways with regard to ‘Requiring training’.

The mean value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ given by the respondents from IIT





significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Expected

Facilitation’.

140

Table 5.6.7 IIT wise Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources `

S/N

Name of the IIT F

value

P


N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34

1 Requiring special

equipment

Mean 2.33 2.35 2.33 1.94 1.78 1.93 2.22 2.09 0.05

SD 1.48 1.23 1.16 0.89 1.04 0.99 1.07

2 Requiring training Mean 1.9 2.34 2.48 1.84 1.68 1.98 2.19

4.3 0.000* SD 1.14 1.07 1.05 0.9 0.94 0.91 1.03

3 Expected

Facilitation

Mean 2.1 2.35 2.41 1.89 1.73 1.96 2.2 3.34 0.003*

SD 1.26 1.11 0.92 0.85 0.97 0.77 0.99



141

5.6.8 IIT wise Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources





independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of ‘Core

purpose’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Teaching ’ and ‘Research’ are

computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based on the IIT (‘IIT

Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’

and ‘IIT Roorkee’) which are Independent variables.


the IIT. The average score of ‘Teaching’ given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur

is 3.76, IIT Bombay is 4.04, IIT Madras is 3.67, IIT Kanpur is 3.88, IIT Delhi is 3.59,

IIT Guwahati is 3.88 and IIT Roorkee is 4.56. The F value is 4.656 and significant

value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that

‘Teaching’ does impact across the different IIT.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Research’ in the perception of the respondents’

categorized based on the IIT. The average score given by the respondents from IIT

Kharagpur is 4.6, IIT Bombay is 4.82, IIT Madras is 4.8, IIT Kanpur is 4.65, IIT Delhi

is 4.82, IIT Guwahati is 4.83 and IIT Roorkee is 4.78. The F value is 1.468 and


implies that respondents from different IIT seem to perceive in similar ways with

regard to ‘Research’.

The mean value for ‘Core purpose’ given by the respondents from IIT





significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Core purpose’.

142

Table 5.6.8 IIT wise Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Name of the IIT F

value

P


N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34

1 Teaching Mean 3.76 4.04 3.67 3.88 3.59 3.88 4.56

4.66 0.000* SD 0.91 0.83 1.08 1.24 0.87 0.92 0.56

2 Research Mean 4.6 4.82 4.8 4.65 4.82 4.83 4.78

1.47 0.19 SD 0.73 0.63 0.4 0.48 0.46 0.38 0.42

3 Core purpose Mean 4.2 4.47 4.24 4.26 4.23 4.36 4.67

3.29 0.004* SD 0.66 0.65 0.68 0.77 0.55 0.53 0.45



143

5.6.9 IIT wise Value Addition in accessing INDEST E-Resources





independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of ‘Value

addition’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Downloading possibilities’ and

‘Full text retrieval’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents

classified based on the place of the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’,


variables.


based on the IIT. The average score for Downloading possibilities given by the




significant which implies that ‘Downloading possibilities’ does not impact across the

different IIT.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Full text retrieval’ in the perception of the

respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score given by the




significant which implies that respondents from different IIT perceive in similar ways

with regard to ‘Full text retrieval’.

The mean value for ‘Value addition’ given by the respondents from IIT



significant value is 0.305 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing between

respondents of different IIT is statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that

a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Value addition’.

144

Table 5.6.9 IIT wise Value Addition in accessing INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Name of the IIT F

value

P


N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34

1 Downloading

possibilities

Mean 4.26 4.51 4.3 4.41 4.38 4.47 4.44 1.15 0.34

SD 0.49 0.62 0.7 0.91 0.82 0.59 0.67

2 Full text retrieval Mean 4.23 4.49 4.45 4.22 4.5 4.59 4.41

1.61 0.14 SD 1.02 0.62 0.67 1.04 0.75 0.64 0.76

3 Value addition Mean 4.24 4.5 4.38 4.31 4.44 4.52 4.42

1.2 0.31 SD 0.67 0.62 0.61 0.89 0.76 0.58 0.7



145

5.6.10 IIT wise Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources





independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the seven attributes of

Satisfaction that are the dependent variables such as ‘Required INDEST E-Resources

subscribed by the library’, ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-Resources in

your library’, ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’, ‘Back volumes

of INDEST E-Resources available in library’, ‘How far INDEST E-Resources

available in library enable you to meet your needs’, ‘Satisfaction obtained from using

INDEST E-Resources’ and ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-Resources’

are computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based on the

place of the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT

Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT Roorkee’) which are Independent variables.


the IIT. The average score of ‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the

library’ given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.12, IIT Bombay is 4.22, IIT



mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Required INDEST E-Resources

subscribed by the library’ does impact across the different IIT.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-

Resources in your library’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on

the place of the IIT. The average score given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur

is 3.88, IIT Bombay is 4.03, IIT Madras is 3.98, IIT Kanpur is 4.09, IIT Delhi is 3.42,



respondents from different IIT seem to perceive in different ways with regard to

‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-Resources in your library’.

The mean value for ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’


146



difference existing between respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at


based on ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’.

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Back volumes of

INDEST E-Resources available in library’ as given by the respondents from IIT


Delhi is 3.09, IIT Guwahati is 3.42 and IIT Roorkee is 3.09. The ANOVA F value is


which implies that ‘Back volumes of INDEST E-Resources available in library’ does

impact across the different IIT.

The average score of ‘How far INDEST E-Resources available in library

enable you to meet your needs’ given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 3.93,

IIT Bombay is 4.03, IIT Madras is 3.84, IIT Kanpur is 4, IIT Delhi is 3.27, IIT

Guwahati is 3.78 and IIT Roorkee is 3.03. The F value is 5.699 and significant value

is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘How far

INDEST E-Resources available in library enable you to meet your needs’ does impact

across the different IIT.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-

Resources’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The

average score for ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-Resources’ as given


3.96, IIT Kanpur is 4, IIT Delhi is 3.36, IIT Guwahati is 4.26 and IIT Roorkee is 3.63.

The F value is 6.376 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference

is significant which implies that respondents of different IIT seem to perceive in

different ways with regard to ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-

Resources’.

The average score for Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-Resources




147

difference is significant which implies that ‘Infrastructure available to Access

INDEST E-Resources’ does impact across the different IIT.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Satisfaction’ in the perception of the respondents’

categorized based on the IIT. The average score for ‘Satisfaction’ as given by the




significant which implies that respondents of different IIT seem to perceive in

different ways with regard to ‘Satisfaction’.

148

Table 5.6.10 IIT wise Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Name of the IIT F

value

P


N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34

1 Required INDEST E-Resources

subscribed by the library

Mean 4.12 4.22 4.16 4.03 3.3 4.16 3.34 7.636 0.000*

SD 0.79 0.86 0.95 0.93 1.18 0.92 1

2

Subject coverage of available

INDEST E-Resources in your

library

Mean 3.88 4.03 3.98 4.09 3.42 3.71 3.59 2.852 0.010*

SD 1.03 0.85 1.1 0.93 1.12 0.98 0.71


Resources available in library

Mean 3.88 4.02 3.79 4.03 3.24 3.68 3.41 4.175 0.000*

SD 1 0.82 1.03 0.97 1 0.98 1.04

4 Back volumes of INDEST E-


Mean 3.72 3.87 3.63 3.78 3.09 3.42 3.09 4.362 0.000*

SD 1.08 1 1.1 1.16 1.04 1 0.89

5

How far INDEST E-Resources

available in library enable you

to meet your needs

Mean 3.93 4.03 3.84 4 3.27 3.78 3.03 5.699 0.000*

SD 0.96 0.96 1.13 0.95 1.04 0.98 1.26

6 Satisfaction obtained from using

INDEST E-Resources

Mean 4.05 4.02 3.96 4 3.36 4.26 3.63 6.376 0.000*

SD 0.69 0.76 0.75 0.92 1.08 0.57 0.75


Access INDEST E-Resources

Mean 4.35 4.33 4.21 3.78 3.64 4.42 3.63 7.301 0.000*

SD 0.78 0.83 0.56 1.18 1.22 0.76 1.04

8 Satisfaction Mean 3.99 4.08 3.94 3.96 3.33 3.95 3.39

5.91 0.000* SD 0.81 0.79 0.87 0.8 1.02 0.65 0.85



149

5.6.11 IIT wise Importance of INDEST E-Resources






‘Importance’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Importance of the INDEST E-

Resources for your research’ and ‘Do you think that the information content of

INDEST E-Resources is useful’ are computed to understand the perception of

respondents classified based on the place of the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’,




based on IIT. The average score of ‘Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for your

research’ given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.58, IIT Bombay is 4.4, IIT


Roorkee is 4.59. The F value is 1.716 and significant value is 0.116 since it is >.05 the

mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Importance of the INDEST E-

Resources for your research’ does not impact across the different levels of IIT.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Do you think that the information content of

INDEST E-Resources is useful’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized

based on the IIT. The average score given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is

4.53, IIT Bombay is 4.29, IIT Madras is 4.67, IIT Kanpur is 4.32, IIT Delhi is 4.82,



respondents from different IIT seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Do

you think that the information content of INDEST E-Resources is useful’.

The mean value for ‘Importance’ given by the respondents from IIT





significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Importance’.

150

Table 5.6.11 IIT wise Importance of INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Name of the IIT F

value

P


N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34

1 Importance of the INDEST E-

Resources for your research Mean 4.58 4.4 4.57 4.5 4.73 4.74 4.59

1.72 0.12 SD 0.59 1.01 0.63 0.88 0.57 0.48 0.71

2

Do you think that the information

content of INDEST E-Resources is

useful

Mean 4.53 4.29 4.67 4.32 4.82 4.86 4.66 5.88 0.000*

SD 0.59 0.99 0.61 0.94 0.46 0.4 0.65

3 Importance Mean 4.56 4.34 4.62 4.42 4.77 4.79 4.63

3.66 0.002* SD 0.58 0.95 0.59 0.88 0.47 0.4 0.67



IIT Roorkee

151

5.6.12 IIT wise Reading pattern of INDEST E-Resources by IIT faculty





independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of Read

electronic (on monitor)’ and ‘Read print out’ are computed to understand the

perception of respondents classified based on the place of the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’,

‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT

Roorkee’) which are Independent variables.

The mean value for ‘Read electronic (on monitor)’ given by the respondents




between respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows

that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Read electronic

(on monitor)’.

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Read print out’ as




difference is significant which implies that ‘Read print out’ does impact across the

different IIT.

152

Table 5.6.12 IIT wise Reading pattern of INDEST E-Resources by IIT faculty

S/N

Name of the IIT

F

value

P


N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34

1 Read electronic(on

monitor)

Mean 4.45 4.36 4.51 4.15 4.06 3.77 3.72 7.95 0.000*

SD 0.67 0.89 0.63 1.06 0.5 1.18 0.73

2 Read print out Mean 3.42 3.21 2.85 3.25 3.13 3.42 3.63

2.75 0.013* SD 1.2 1.21 1.06 1.34 1.01 1.12 1.04



153

Fig 33: IIT wise Factors analysis

5.6.13 Summary

This section deals with the testing of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Basic



Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance, Reading pattern, in accessing/using

INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs. The summary of section 5.6

indicate that The F value is 2.766 and significant value is 0.012 since it is <.05 the

mean difference is significant which implies that respondents of different IIT seem to

perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Basic Advantages’ (Table 5.6.1), The F


significant which implies that respondents of different IIT seem to perceive in

different ways with regard to ‘Disadvantages’(Table 5.6.2), The F value is 7.203 and


implies that respondents of different IIT seem to perceive in different ways with

regard to ‘Augmented Purpose’(Table 5.6.3),The F value is 12.934 and significant


0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Mea

n S

core

IIT Kharagpur IIT Bombay IIT Madras IIT Kanpur

IIT Delhi IIT Guwahati IIT Roorkee

154

‘Availability and accessibility’ does impact across the different level of IIT (Table

5.6.4), The F value is 2.267 and significant value is 0.037 since it is <.05 the mean

difference is significant which implies that ‘Limitation of accessing system’ does

impact across the different level of IIT (Table 5.6.5), The F value is 6.305 and


implies that ‘Strength in accessing network’ does impact across the different levels of

IIT(Table 5.6.6), F value is 3.335 and significant value is 0.003 since it is <.05 the

mean difference existing between respondents of different IIT is statistically

significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted

outcome based on ‘Expected Facilitation’ (Table 5.6.7), The F value is 3.294 and



significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Core purpose’ (Table

5.6.8), The F value is 1.201 and significant value is 0.305 since it is >.05 the mean

difference existing between respondents of different IIT is statistically not significant

at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted

outcome based on ‘Value addition’(Table 5.6.9), The F value is 5.909 and significant


respondents of different IIT seem to perceive in different ways with regard to

‘Satisfaction’ (Table 5.6.10), The F value is 3.661 and significant value is 0.002 since

it is <.05 the mean difference existing between respondents of different IIT is

statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on

the targeted outcome based on ‘Importance’. IITs wise faculty use of INDEST E-

Resources(Table 5.6.11), The F value is 7.946 and significant value is 0.00 since it is

<.05 the mean difference existing between respondents of different IIT is statistically


outcome based on ‘Read electronic (on monitor)’.The F value is 2.752 and significant


‘Read print out’ does impact across the different place of IIT (Table 5.6.12).

155

SECTION 7

DESIGNATION WISE USING OF INDEST E-RESOURCES BY THE

FACULTY OF IITs

5.7.0 Introduction




Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance, Print/Read journals, designation wise using

INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs.

Hypothesis - II

Ho: There is no significant difference on Perception of INDEST usage Vs

Designation

Ha: There is significant difference on Perception of INDEST usage Vs Designation.

5.7.1 Designation wise Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources






‘Basic Advantages’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘User-friendly interface’,

‘Retrieval possibilities’, ‘Searchability/search capabilities’, ‘Currency (Up-to-date

information)’ and ‘Convenience’ are computed to understand the perception of

respondents classified based on the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’

and ‘Assistant Professor) which are Independent variables.


the designation. The average score of ‘User-friendly interface’ given by the

respondents who are Professors is 4.28, Associate Professors is 4.33 and Assistant

Professor is 4.17. The F value is 1.278 and significant value is 0.28 since it is >.05 the

mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘User-friendly interface’ does

impact across different level of designation.

156


respondents’ categorized based on their designation. The average score given by the

respondents who are Professors is 4.25, Associate Professor is 4.24 and Assistant

Professor is 4.19. The F value is 0.186 and significant value is 0.831 since it is >.05

the mean difference is not significant which implies that respondents with different

designation perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Retrieval possibilities’.




the mean difference existing between respondents with different designation is

statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not

evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Searchability/search capabilities’.


information)’ as given by the respondents who are Professors is 4.36, Associate

Professors is 4.22 and Assistant Professor is 4.21. The F value is 1.446 and significant

value is 0.237 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that

‘Currency (Up-to-date information)’ does not impact across different level of

designation.

The average score of ‘Convenience’ given by the respondents who are

Professors is 4.31, Associate Professors is 4.48 and Assistant Professor is 4.19. The F


significant which implies that ‘Convenience’ does impact across different level of

designation.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Basic Advantages’ in the perception of the

respondents’ categorized based on the Designation. The average score for ‘Basic

Advantages’ as given by the respondents whose designation is ‘Professor’ is 4.32,

Associate Professor is 4.34 and Assistant Professor is 4.18. The F value is 2.11 and


implies that respondents of different designation perceive in similar ways with regard

to ‘Basic Advantages’.

157

Table 5.7.1Designation wise Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Designation

F

value

P

value Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

N=174 N=94 N=143

1 User-friendly

interface

Mean 4.28 4.33 4.17 1.28 0.28

SD 0.82 0.77 0.74

2 Retrieval

possibilities

Mean 4.25 4.24 4.19 0.19 0.83

SD 0.82 0.84 0.84

3 Searchability/search

capabilities

Mean 4.36 4.38 4.19 2.24 0.11

SD 0.8 0.79 0.77

4 Currency (Up-to-

date information)

Mean 4.36 4.22 4.21 1.45 0.24

SD 0.81 0.86 0.74

5 Convenience Mean 4.31 4.48 4.19

3.54 0.030* SD 0.87 0.64 0.81

6 Basic Advantages Mean 4.32 4.34 4.18

2.11 0.12 SD 0.69 0.6 0.66


5.7.2 Designation wise Disadvantages in accessing INDEST E-Resources






‘Disadvantages’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Perishable citation’, ‘Format



perception of respondents classified based on the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate

Professor’ and ‘Assistant Professor) which are Independent variables.


the designation. The average score of ‘User-friendly interface’ given by the



mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘User-friendly interface’ does

impact across different level of designation.

158

To ascertain the impact of ‘Perishable citation’ in the perception of the




mean difference is not significant which implies that respondents with different

designation perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Perishable citation’.

The mean value for ‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal use’ given by

the respondents who are Professors is 2.51, Associate Professors is 2.4 and Assistant

Professor is 2.18. The F value is 3.65 and significant value is 0.027 since it is <.05 the

mean difference existing between respondents with different designation is


the targeted outcome based on ‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal use’.

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Lack of standardized

formats’ as given by the respondents who are Professors is 2.43, Associate Professors

is 2.69 and Assistant Professor is 2.58. The F value is 1.366 and significant value is

0.256 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Lack

of standardized formats’ does not impact across different level of designation.

The average score of ‘Authenticity’ given by the respondents who are



significant which implies that ‘Authenticity’ does not impact across different level of

designation.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Disadvantages’ in the perception of the

respondents’ categorized based on the Designation. The average score for

‘Disadvantages’ as given by the respondents whose designation is ‘Professor’ is 2.26,




to ‘Disadvantages’.

159

Table 5.7.2 Designation wise Disadvantages in accessing INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Designation

F

value

P

value Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

N=174 N=94 N=143

1 Perishable citation Mean 2.42 2.37 2.2

1.662 0.191 SD 1.17 1.08 0.88

2

Format that a large

proportion of e-journal

use

Mean 2.51 2.4 2.18 3.65 0.027*

SD 1.09 1.1 0.86

3 Lack of standardized

formats

Mean 2.43 2.69 2.58 1.366 0.256

SD 1.2 1.3 1.14

4 Authenticity Mean 2.25 2.24 2.14

0.436 0.647 SD 1.11 1.24 1.02

5 Search engines ignores

PDF files

Mean 1.93 2.07 2.16 1.682 0.187

SD 1.01 1.17 1.04

6 Disadvantages Mean 2.26 2.36 2.26

0.37 0.69 SD 1.01 0.95 0.79


5.7.3 Designation wise Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources






‘Augmented Purpose’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘To be up-to-date in the

subject’, ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’, ‘To get latest facts and statistics’,

‘To know the trends in Technical field’ and ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be


perception of respondents classified based on the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate

Professor’ and ‘Assistant Professor) which are Independent variables.


based on their designation. The average score of ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’

given by the respondents who are Professors is 4.43, Associate Professors is 4.73 and

Assistant Professor is 4.19. The F value is 9.51 and significant value is 0.00 since it is

160

<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘To be up-to-date in the

subject’ does impact across different level of designation.


perception of the respondents’ categorized based on their designation. The average

score given by the respondents who are Professors is 4.09, Associate Professor is 4.35

and Assistant Professor is 3.87. The F value is 6.639 and significant value is 0.001

since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that respondents with

different designation seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Preparing for

seminars, workshops etc’.

The mean value for ‘To get latest facts and statistics’ given by the respondents

who are Professors is 4.11, Associate Professors is 4.34 and Assistant Professor is


difference existing between respondents with different designation is statistically


outcome based on ‘To get latest facts and statistics’.

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘To know the trends in

Technical field’ as given by the respondents who are Professors is 4.22, Associate


value is 0.003 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘To

know the trends in Technical field’ has an impact across different levels of

designation.

The average score of ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in

the field’ given by the respondents who are Professors is 4.2, Associate Professors is

4.49 and Assistant Professor is 3.93. The F value is 8.741 and significant value is

0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘To get

comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in the field’ does impact across

different levels of designation.

To ascertain the impact of ‘To write Articles’ in the perception of the

respondents’ categorized based on the Designation. The average score for ‘To write

Articles’ as given by the respondents whose designation is ‘Professor’ is 4.33,



161


to ‘To write Articles’.

The average score of ‘Augmented Purpose’ given by the respondents who are



significant which implies that ‘Augmented Purpose’ does impact across different

levels of designation.

Table 5.7.3 Designation wise Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Designation

F

value

P

value Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

N=174 N=94 N=143


subject

Mean 4.43 4.73 4.19 9.51 0.000*

SD 0.88 0.56 1.1

2

Preparing for

seminars, workshops

etc

Mean 4.09 4.35 3.87 6.64 0.001*

SD 0.91 0.73 1.14


statistics

Mean 4.11 4.34 3.94 4.05 0.018*

SD 1.03 0.72 1.12


Technical field

Mean 4.22 4.49 3.99 5.84 0.003*

SD 1.06 0.87 1.2

5


knowledge and be

competitive in the

field

Mean 4.2 4.49 3.93

8.74 0.000* SD 0.94 0.59 1.22

6 To write Articles Mean 4.33 4.52 4.36

1.97 0.14 SD 0.78 0.66 0.84

7 Augmented Purpose Mean 4.23 4.52 4.07

10.6 0.000* SD 0.68 0.51 0.89


5.7.4 Designation wise Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources





independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the four attributes of

‘Availability and Accessibility’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Prompt

162

accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’, ‘Desktop availability’, ‘Free access’ and ‘Multiuser


the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’ and ‘Assistant Professor) which

are Independent variables.


the designation. The average score of ‘Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’ given

by the respondents who are Professors is 4.15, Associate Professors is 4.64 and

Assistant Professor is 4.13. The F value is 8.514 and significant value is 0.000 since it

is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Prompt accessibility

(7/24 hours a day)’ does impact across different levels of designation.




Professor is 4.06. The F value is 8.706 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05

the mean difference is significant which implies that respondents with different

designation seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Desktop availability’.

The mean value for ‘Free access’ given by the respondents who are Professors

is 4.06, Associate Professors is 4.1 and Assistant Professor is 4.03. The F value is 0.13

and significant value is 0.878 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing between

respondents with different designation is statistically not significant at 5% level. This

shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Free

access’.




is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Multiuser access’

does not impact across different levels of designation.

The average score of ‘Availability and accessibility’ given by the respondents

who are Professors is 4.01, Associate Professors is 4.21 and Assistant Professor is


difference is not significant which implies that ‘Availability and accessibility’ does

not impact across different levels of designation.

163

Table 5.7.4 Designation wise Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-

Resources

S/N

Designation

F

value

P

value Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

N=174 N=94 N=143

1 Prompt accessibility

(7/24 hours a day)

Mean 4.15 4.64 4.13 8.51 0.000*

SD 1 0.66 1.22

2 Desktop availability Mean 4.31 4.6 4.06

8.71 0.000* SD 0.95 0.74 1.1

3 Free access Mean 4.06 4.1 4.03

0.13 0.88 SD 1.07 0.92 1.1

4 Multiuser access Mean 3.46 3.49 3.52

0.1 0.91 SD 1.29 1.26 1.16

5 Availability and

accessibility

Mean 4.01 4.21 3.94 2.76 0.07

SD 0.82 0.64 1.01


5.7.5Designation wise Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources






‘Limitation of accessing system‘ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Difficulty

reading computer screens’, ‘Limitations of computer monitor’ and ‘Often not included

in indexing and abstracting services’ are computed to understand the perception of




the designation. The average score of ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’ given by

the respondents who are Professors is 2.66, Associate Professors is 2.49 and Assistant


the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Difficulty reading computer

screens’ does not impact across different levels of designation.

164


of the respondents’ categorized based on their designation. The average score given

by the respondents who are Professors is 2.4, Associate Professor is 2.52 and Assistant



designation perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Limitations of computer

monitor’.



Assistant Professor is 2.35. The F value is 1.2 and significant value is 0.302 since it is

>.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different designation is


evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Often not included in indexing and

abstracting services’.


accessing system’ as given by the respondents who are Professors is 2.52, Associate



‘Limitation of accessing system’ does not impact across different levels of

designation.

Table 5.7.5 Designation wise Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Designation

F

value

P

value Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

N=174 N=94 N=143


computer screens

Mean 2.66 2.49 2.46 0.9 0.41

SD 1.4 1.52 1.14

2 Limitations of

computer monitor

Mean 2.4 2.52 2.24 1.22 0.3

SD 1.33 1.55 1.19

3


indexing and


Mean 2.59 2.44 2.35 1.2 0.3

SD 1.53 1.22 1.18

4 Limitation of

accessing system

Mean 2.52 2.52 2.35 0.91 0.4

SD 1.27 1.33 0.95


165

5.7.6 Designation wise Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources Network











the designation. The average score of ‘Accuracy’ given by the respondents who are



significant which implies that ‘Accuracy’ does not impact across different levels of

designation.


categorized based on their designation. The average score given by the respondents

who are Professors is 3.95, Associate Professor is 4.27 and Assistant Professor is 3.87.


is significant which implies that respondents with different designation seem to

perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Credibility’.

The mean value for ‘Connecting people’ given by the respondents who are



existing between respondents with different designation is statistically significant at


based on ‘Connecting people’.


network’ as given by the respondents who are Professors is 3.8, Associate Professors

are 4.00 and Assistant Professor is 3.68. The F value is 4.607 and significant value is

166

0.011 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Strength in

accessing network’ does impact across different levels of designation.

Table 5.7.6 Designation wise Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Designation

F

value

P

value Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

N=174 N=94 N=143

1 Accuracy Mean 3.98 4.11 3.98

0.91 0.41 SD 0.86 0.85 0.76

2 Credibility Mean 3.95 4.27 3.87

6.43 0.002* SD 0.84 0.8 0.95

3 Connecting people Mean 3.45 3.62 3.2

3.49 0.032* SD 1.11 1.18 1.27


Mean 3.8 4 3.68 4.61 0.011*

SD 0.76 0.8 0.78


5.7.7 Designation wise Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources











the designation. The average score of ‘Requiring special equipment’ given by the



the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Requiring special equipment’

does impact across different levels of designation.



167




designation seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Requiring training’.

The mean value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ given by the respondents who are

Professors is 2, Associate Professors are 2.11 and Assistant Professor is 2.39. The F




based on ‘Expected Facilitation’.

Table 5.7.7 Designation wise Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-

Resources

S/N

Designation

F

value

P

value Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

N=174 N=94 N=143

1 Requiring special

equipment

Mean 2.01 2.1 2.42 4.682 0.010*

SD 1.08 1.08 1.29

2 Requiring training Mean 1.99 2.11 2.35

4.408 0.013* SD 1 0.99 1.12

3 Expected

Facilitation

Mean 2 2.11 2.39 5.435 0.005*

SD 0.98 0.98 1.04


5.7.8 Designation wise Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources






purpose’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Teaching’ and ‘Research’ are

computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based on the

Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’ and ‘Assistant Professor) which are



the designation. The average score of ‘Teaching’ given by the respondents who are

168



significant which implies that ‘Teaching’ does not impact across different levels of

designation.


categorized based on their designation, the ANOVA test was conducted. The average

score given by the respondents who are Professors is 4.76, Associate Professor is 4.84

and Assistant Professor is 4.74. The F value is 1.175 and significant value is 0.31

since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that respondents

with different designation seem to perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Research’.

The mean value for ‘Core purpose’ given by the respondents who are

Professors is 4.33, Associate Professors are 4.44 and Assistant Professor is 4.3. The F

value is 1.556 and significant value is 0.212 since it is >05 the mean difference

existing between respondents with different designation is statistically not significant


outcome based on ‘Core purpose’.

Table 5.7.8 Designation wise Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Designation

F

value

P

value Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

N=174 N=94 N=143

1 Teaching Mean 3.89 3.94 3.86

0.175 0.839 SD 0.83 0.93 1.15

2 Research Mean 4.76 4.84 4.74

1.175 0.31 SD 0.5 0.52 0.55

Core purpose

Mean 4.33 4.44 4.3 1.556 0.212

SD 0.52 0.55 0.8


5.7.9 Designation wise Value Addition in accessing INDEST E-Resources






169

Addition’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Downloading possibilities’ and


classified based on the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’ and ‘Assistant

Professor) which are Independent variables.


the designation. The average score of ‘Downloading possibilities’ given by the



mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Downloading possibilities’ does

not impact across different levels of designation.





mean difference is not significant which implies that respondents with different

designation perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Full text retrieval’.

The mean value for ‘Value addition’ given by the respondents who are

Professors is 4.47, Associate Professors is4.44 and Assistant Professor is 4.34. The F


existing between respondents with different designation is statistically not significant


outcome based on ‘Value addition’.

Table 5.7.9 Designation wise Value Addition in accessing INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Designation

F

value

P

value

R

Sqr Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

N=174 N=94 N=143

1 Downloading

possibilities

Mean 4.42 4.45 4.34 0.86 0.424 0.004

SD 0.69 0.58 0.71

2 Full text

retrieval

Mean 4.51 4.44 4.36 1.519 0.22 0.008

SD 0.81 0.71 0.73

Value

addition

Mean 4.47 4.44 4.34 1.428 0.241 0.007

SD 0.69 0.58 0.68


170

5.7.10 Designation wise Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources






‘Satisfaction’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Required INDEST E-

Resources subscribed by the library’, ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-

Resources in your library’, ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’,

‘Back volumes of INDEST E-Resources available in library’, ‘How far INDEST E-

Resources available in library enable you to meet your needs’, ‘Satisfaction obtained

from using INDEST E-Resources’ and ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST

E-Resources’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents classified

based on the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’ and ‘Assistant Professor)



based on the designation. The average score of ‘Required INDEST E-Resources

subscribed by the library’ given by the respondents who are Professors is 3.81,

Associate Professors is 4.41 and Assistant Professor is 3.98. The F value is 11.768 and


implies that ‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the library’ does impact

across different levels of designation.



their designation. The average score given by the respondents who are Professors is

3.84, Associate Professor is 4.08 and Assistant Professor is 3.74. The F value is 3.326

and significant value is 0.037 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which

implies that respondents with different designation seem to perceive in different ways

with regard to ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-Resources in your library’.




171

is <.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different designation is


the targeted outcome based on ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’.


INDEST E-Resources available in library’ as given by the respondents who are



significant which implies that ‘Back volumes of INDEST E-Resources available in

library’ does impact across different levels of designation.


enable you to meet your needs’ given by the respondents who are Professors is 3.78,

Associate Professors are 4.11 and Assistant Professor is 3.54. The F value is 7.975 and


implies that ‘How far INDEST E-Resources available in library enable you to meet

your needs’ does impact across different levels of designation.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-

Resources’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on the

Designation. The average score for ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-

Resources’ as given by the respondents whose designation is ‘Professor’ is 3.94,



implies that respondents of different designation perceive in different ways with

regard to ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-Resources’.

To ascertain the impact of ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-

Resources’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on the

Designation. The average score for ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-

Resources’ as given by the respondents whose designation is ‘Professor’ is 4.05,



implies that respondents of different designation perceive in different ways with

regard to ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-Resources’.

172

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Satisfaction’ as given

by the respondents who are Professors is 3.83, Associate Professors are 4.16 and


is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Satisfaction’ does impact

across different levels of designation.

Table 5.7.10 Designation wise Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Designation

F

value

P

value Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

N=174 N=94 N=143

1

Required INDEST E-

Resources subscribed by the

library

Mean 3.81 4.41 3.98 11.77 0.000*

SD 1.06 0.78 0.93

2



library

Mean 3.84 4.08 3.74 3.326 0.037*

SD 1.04 0.82 1.01



Mean 3.79 4.11 3.55 8.68 0.000*

SD 1.01 0.77 1.03



Mean 3.58 3.82 3.42 3.909 0.021*

SD 1.14 0.92 1.05

5


available in library enable you

to meet your needs

Mean 3.78 4.11 3.54 7.975 0.000*

SD 1.08 0.77 1.19

6 Satisfaction obtained from

using INDEST E-Resources

Mean 3.94 4.19 3.82 6.188 0.002*

SD 0.92 0.6 0.73


Access INDEST E-Resources

Mean 4.05 4.36 4.12 3.659 0.027*

SD 0.94 0.89 0.85

8 Satisfaction Mean 3.83 4.16 3.74

7.451 0.001* SD 0.92 0.59 0.86


5.7.11 Designation wise Importance of INDEST E-Resources






173







the Designation. The average score of ‘Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for

your research’ given by the respondents who are Professors is 4.58, Associate



‘Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for your research’ does not impact across

different levels of designation.



based on their designation. The average score given by the respondents who are

Professors is 4.56, Associate Professor is 4.65 and Assistant Professor is 4.55. The F


significant which implies that respondents with different designation perceive in

similar ways with regard to ‘Do you think that the information content of INDEST E-

Resources is useful’.

The mean value for ‘Importance’ given by the respondents who are Professors

is 4.57, Associate Professors are 4.66 and Assistant Professor is 4.53. The F value is

0.886 and significant value is 0.413 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing

between respondents with different designation is statistically not significant at 5%

level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome

based on ‘Importance’.

174

Table 5.7.11 Designation wise Importance of INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Designation

F

value

P

value Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

N=174 N=94 N=143


Resources for your research

Mean 4.58 4.66 4.5 1.191 0.305

SD 0.9 0.58 0.61

2




useful

Mean 4.56 4.65 4.55

0.531 0.588 SD 0.9 0.55 0.64

Importance

Mean 4.57 4.66 4.53 0.886 0.413

SD 0.88 0.52 0.56


5.7.12 Designation wise reading pattern of INDEST E-Resources by faculty






‘Reading pattern’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Read electronic(on

monitor)’ and ‘Read print out’ are computed to understand the perception of




the Designation. The mean value for ‘Read electronic (on monitor)’ given by the



the mean difference existing between respondents with different designation is


the targeted outcome based on ‘Read electronic (on monitor)’.

The mean value for ‘Read print out’ given by the respondents who are




175


based on ‘Read print out’.

Table 5.7.12 Designation wise Read pattern of INDEST E-Resources by faulty

S/N

Designation

F

value

P

value Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

N=174 N=94 N=143


monitor)

Mean 4.07 4.34 4.25 3.063 0.048

SD 0.99 0.85 0.79

2 Read print out Mean 3.46 2.81 3.26

9.437 0.000* SD 1.16 1.27 1.01


Fig. 34: Designation wise Factors analysis

5.7.13 Summary




Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance, Reading pattern with designation wise using

INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs. The summary of section 5.7

indicate that the F value is 2.11 and significant value is 0.123 since it is >.05 the mean

difference is not significant which implies that respondents of different designation

perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Basic Advantages’ (Table 5.7.1), The F value

is 0.371 and significant value is 0.69 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Mea

n S

core

Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor

176

significant which implies that respondents of different designation perceive in similar

ways with regard to ‘Disadvantages’ (Table 5.7.2), The F value is 10.574 and


implies that ‘Augmented Purpose’ does impact across different levels of designation

(Table 5.7.3), The F value is 2.756 and significant value is 0.065 since it is >.05 the

mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Availability and accessibility’

does not impact across different levels of designation (Table 5.7.4), The F value is

0.91 and significant value is 0.403 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not

significant which implies that ‘Limitation of accessing system’ does not impact across

different levels of designation (Table 5.7.5), The F value is 4.607 and significant value

is 0.011 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Strength

in accessing network’ does impact across different levels of designation(Table

5.7.6),The F value is 5.435 and significant value is 0.005 since it is <.05 the mean

difference existing between respondents with different designation is statistically


outcome based on ‘Expected Facilitation’ (Table 5.7.7), The F value is 1.556 and

significant value is 0.212 since it is >05 the mean difference existing between

respondents with different designation is statistically not significant at 5% level. This

shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on Core

purpose (Table 5.7.8), The F value is 1.428 and significant value is 0.241 since it is

>.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different designation is


evident on the targeted outcome based on Value addition (Table 5.7.9), The F value is


which implies that ‘Satisfaction’ does impact across different levels of designation

(Table 5.7.10), The F value is 0.886 and significant value is 0.413 since it is >.05 the

mean difference existing between respondents with different designation is


evident on the targeted outcome based on Importance (Table 5.7.11), The F value is


between respondents with different designation is statistically significant at 5% level.

This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on

Read print out (Table 5.7.12).

177

SECTION 8

AGE WISE USE OF INDEST E-RESOURCES BY THE FACULTY OF IITs

5.8.0 Introduction




Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance and Read Pattern of IIT Faculty by age wise

using INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IIT’s.

Hypothesis III

Ho: There is no significant difference on Perception on INDEST usage Vs Age.

Ha: There is significant difference on Perception on INDEST usage Vs Age.

5.8.1 Age in Years Vs Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources





independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the five attributes of ‘Basic

Advantages’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘User-friendly interface’ ,



respondents classified based on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55

years’ and ‘>56’ which are Independent variables.


the age. The average score of ‘User-friendly interface’ given by the respondents

whose age is ’25 to 35 years’ is 4.08, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.31, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.24

and ‘>56 years’ is 4.32. The F value is 1.651 and significant value is 0.177 since it is

>.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘User-friendly interface’

does not impact across different age group.


respondents’ categorized based on their age. The average score given by the

respondents whose age group is from’25 to 35 years’ is 4.03, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.27,

178

’46 to 55 years’ is 4.25 and ‘>56’ is 4.29. The F value is 1.711 and significant value

is 0.164 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that

respondents of different age group seem to perceive in similar ways with regard to

‘Retrieval possibilities’.


respondents of age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 4.12, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.35, ’46 to 55

years’ is 4.44 and ‘>56 years’ is 4.25. The F value is 2.511 and significant value is

0.058 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing between respondents of different

age group is statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant

effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Searchability/search

capabilities’.


information)’ as given by the respondents of the age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 4.23,

’36 to 45 years’ is 4.23, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.29 and ‘>56 years’ 4.42. The F value is

1.047 and significant value is 0.371 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not

significant which implies that ‘Currency (Up-to-date information)’ does not impact

across different age group.

The average score of ‘Convenience’ given by the respondents of age group’25

to 35 years’ is 4.19, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.35, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.28 and ‘>56 years’ is


difference is not significant which implies that ‘Convenience’ does not impact across

the groups categorized based on their age.

The average score of ‘Basic Advantages’ given by the respondents of age

group’25 to 35 years’ is 4.12, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.31, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.31 and

‘>56 years’ is 4.34. The F value is 1.855 and significant value is 0.137 since it is >.05

the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Basic Advantages’ does not

impact across the different age group.

179

Table 5.8.1 Age in Years Vs Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Age in Years F

value

P

value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72

1 User-friendly interface Mean 4.08 4.31 4.24 4.32

1.651 0.177 SD 0.84 0.72 0.79 0.82

2 Retrieval possibilities Mean 4.03 4.27 4.25 4.29

1.711 0.164 SD 0.92 0.82 0.79 0.79


capabilities

Mean 4.12 4.35 4.44 4.25 2.511 0.058

SD 0.88 0.74 0.79 0.79

4 Currency (Up-to-date

information)

Mean 4.23 4.23 4.29 4.42 1.047 0.371

SD 0.76 0.83 0.88 0.65

5 Convenience Mean 4.19 4.35 4.28 4.38

0.881 0.451 SD 0.81 0.76 0.75 0.95

Basic Advantages

Mean 4.12 4.31 4.31 4.34 1.855 0.137

SD 0.72 0.6 0.68 0.68


5.8.2 Age Vs Disadvantages of using INDEST E-Resources






‘Disadvantages’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Perishable citation’ ,

‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal use’, ‘Lack of standardized formats’,


perception of respondents classified based on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45

years’, ’46 to 55 years’ and ‘>56 years’ which are Independent variables.


the age. The average score of ‘Perishable citation’ given by the respondents whose age

is ’25 to 35 years’ is 2.1, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.33, ’46 to 55 years’ is 2.35 and ‘>56

years’ is 2.57. The F value is 2.361 and significant value is 0.071 since it is >.05 the

mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Perishable citation’ does not

impact across the groups categorized based on their age.

180


the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on their age. The average score

given by the respondents whose age group is from’25 to 35 years’ is 2.18, ’36 to 45

years’ is 2.33, ’46 to 55 years’ is 2.43 and ‘>56’ is 2.56. The F value is 1.829 and


implies that respondents of different age group perceive in similar ways with regard to

‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal use’.

The mean value for ‘Lack of standardized formats’ given by the respondents of

age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 2.44, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.64, ’46 to 55 years’ is 2.38 and

‘>56 years’ is 2.65. The F value is 1.173 and significant value is 0.32 since it is >.05

the mean difference existing between respondents of different age group is statistically

not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the

targeted outcome based on ‘Lack of standardized formats’.


by the respondents of the age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 2.16, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.15,

’46 to 55 years’ is 2.27 and ‘>56 years’ is 2.32. The F value is 0.528 and significant


‘Authenticity’ does not impact across the different levels of age.

The average score of ‘Search engines ignores PDF files’ given by the

respondents of age group’25 to 35 years’ is 2.19, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.04, ’46 to 55


0.25 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Search

engines ignores PDF files’ does not impact across the different age groups.

The average score of ‘Disadvantages’ given by the respondents of age

group’25 to 35 years’ is 2.22, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.3, ’46 to 55 years’ is 2.18 and ‘>56


mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Disadvantages’ does not impact

across the different age groups.

181

Table 5.8.2 Age Vs Disadvantages of using INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Age in Years F

value

P

value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72

1 Perishable citation Mean 2.1 2.33 2.35 2.57

2.361 0.071 SD 0.99 0.96 1.02 1.3

2

Format that a large

proportion of e-

journal use

Mean 2.18 2.33 2.43 2.56 1.829 0.142

SD 0.91 0.99 1.01 1.19


formats

Mean 2.44 2.64 2.38 2.65 1.173 0.32

SD 1.19 1.25 1.05 1.28

4 Authenticity Mean 2.16 2.15 2.27 2.32

0.528 0.663 SD 1 1.16 1.15 1.07

5 Search engines

ignores PDF files

Mean 2.19 2.04 1.87 2.12 1.376 0.25

SD 1.19 1.07 0.91 1.07

Disadvantages

Mean 2.22 2.3 2.18 2.44 1.178 0.318

SD 0.89 0.86 0.93 1.07


5.8.3 Age Vs Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources





independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the Six attributes of





perception of respondents classified based on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45

years’, ’46 to 55 years’ and ‘>56’ which are Independent variables.


the age. The average score of ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’ given by the

respondents whose age is ’25 to 35 years’ is 4.04, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.59, ’46 to 55


0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘To be up-

to-date in the subject’ does impact across the different age groups.

182


perception of the respondents’ categorized based on their age. The average score

given by the respondents whose age group is from’25 to 35 years’ is 3.72, ’36 to 45

years’ is 4.29, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.19 and ‘>56’ is 3.88. The F value is 6.977 and


implies that respondents of different age group seem to perceive in different ways

with regard to ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’.


of age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 3.77, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.34, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.01


<.05 the mean difference existing between respondents of different age group is


the targeted outcome based on ‘To get latest facts and statistics’.


Technical field’ as given by the respondents of the age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 3.76,

’36 to 45 years’ is 4.44, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.26 and ‘>56 years’ 4.08. The F value is


which implies that ‘To know the trends in Technical field’ does impact across the

different age groups.

The average score of ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in

the field’ given by the respondents of age group’25 to 35 years’ is 3.74, ’36 to 45

years’ is 4.39, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.47 and ‘>56 years’ is 3.79. The F value is 13.91


implies that ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in the field’ does

impact across the different age groups.

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘To write Articles’ as

given by the respondents of the age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 4.42, ’36 to 45 years’ is

4.46, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.4 and ‘>56 years’ 4.18. The F value is 2.275 and significant


‘To write Articles’ does not impact across the different age groups.

The average score of ‘Augmented Purpose’ given by the respondents of age

group’25 to 35 years’ is 3.91, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.44, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.34 and

183

‘>56 years’ is 4.03. The F value is 12.03 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05

the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Augmented Purpose’ does

impact across the different age groups.

Table 5.8.3 Age Vs Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Age in Years F

value

P

value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72


subject

Mean 4.04 4.59 4.66 4.17 9.973 0.000*

SD 1.25 0.67 0.59 1.14


workshops etc

Mean 3.72 4.29 4.19 3.88 6.977 0.000*

SD 1.23 0.83 0.8 1.01


statistics

Mean 3.77 4.34 4.01 4.12 5.584 0.001*

SD 1.24 0.76 1.1 0.95


Technical field

Mean 3.76 4.44 4.26 4.08 7.169 0.000*

SD 1.29 0.92 0.92 1.23

5


knowledge and be

competitive in the field

Mean 3.74 4.39 4.47 3.79 13.91 0.000*

SD 1.37 0.79 0.63 1.09

6 To write Articles Mean 4.42 4.46 4.4 4.18

2.275 0.079 SD 0.82 0.69 0.62 1.02

Augmented Purpose

Mean 3.91 4.44 4.34 4.03 12.03 0.000*

SD 0.97 0.63 0.46 0.85


5.8.4 Age Vs Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources

To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for testing

the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and more

than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand



‘Availability and accessibility’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Prompt



their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55 years’ and ‘>56’ which are


The table 5.8.4shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on the

age. The average score of ‘Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’ given by the

184



0.015 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Prompt

accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’ does impact across the different age groups.





is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that

respondents of different age group seem to perceive in different ways with regard to

‘Desktop availability’.

The mean value for ‘Free access’ given by the respondents of age group ’25 to 35

years’ is 4.01, ’36 to 45 years’ is 3.88, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.37 and ‘>56 years’ is 4.09.


existing between respondents of different age group is statistically significant at 5%

level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based

on ‘Free access’.



3.45, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.56 and ‘>56 years’ 3.33. The F value is 0.797 and


implies that ‘Multiuser access’ does not impact across the different age groups.

The average score of ‘Availability and accessibility’ given by the respondents of

age group’25 to 35 years’ is 3.96, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.01, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.25 and


the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Availability and accessibility’

does impact across the different age groups.

185

Table 5.8.4 Age Vs Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Age in Years F

value

P

value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72

1

Prompt

accessibility (7/24

hours a day)

Mean 4.18 4.34 4.43 3.94 3.553 0.015*

SD 1.21 1 0.74 1.17

2 Desktop

availability

Mean 4.01 4.35 4.59 4.09 6.131 0.000*

SD 1.24 0.88 0.68 1.09

3 Free access Mean 4.01 3.88 4.37 4.09

4.348 0.005* SD 1.23 1.04 0.81 1.03

4 Multiuser access Mean 3.63 3.45 3.56 3.33

0.797 0.496 SD 1.21 1.12 1.31 1.41

Availability and

accessibility

Mean 3.96 4.01 4.25 3.86 3.102 0.027*

SD 1.12 0.77 0.62 0.94


5.8.5Age Vs Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources











Table 5.8.5 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on the

age. The average score of ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’ given by the



0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Difficulty

reading computer screens’ does impact across the different age groups.


of the respondents’ categorized based on their age. The average score given by the

186


’46 to 55 years’ is 2.6 and ‘>56’ is 2.52. The F value is 2.071 and significant value is

0.104 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that

respondents of different age group seem to perceive in similar ways with regard to

‘Limitations of computer monitor’.


given by the respondents of age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 2.3, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.31,


value is 0.029 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between respondents of

different age group is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant

effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Often not included in indexing

and abstracting services’.


accessing system’ as given by the respondents of the age group ’25 to 35 years’ is

2.43, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.26, ’46 to 55 years’ is 2.79 and ‘>56 years’ 2.53. The F


significant which implies that ‘Limitation of accessing system’ does impact across the


Table 5.8.5 Age Vs Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Age in Years F

value

P

value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72


computer screens

Mean 2.65 2.22 3.05 2.57 7.682 0.000*

SD 1.24 1.24 1.37 1.45

2 Limitations of

computer monitor

Mean 2.35 2.19 2.6 2.52 2.071 0.104

SD 1.27 1.3 1.24 1.57

3


indexing and


Mean 2.3 2.31 2.79 2.61 3.036 0.029*

SD 1.17 1.24 1.51 1.45

Limitation of

accessing

Mean 2.43 2.26 2.79 2.53 3.918 0.009*

SD 1.03 1.12 1.16 1.41


5.8.6Age Vs Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources Network



187




‘Strength in accessing network’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Accuracy’ ,



years’ and ‘>56 years’ which are Independent variables.


the age. The average score of ‘Accuracy’ given by the respondents whose age is ’25 to

35 years’ is 4, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.02, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.11 and ‘>56 years’ is 3.9.


is not significant which implies that ‘Accuracy’ does not impact across the different

age groups.


categorized based on their age. The average score given by the respondents whose age

group is from’25 to 35 years’ is 3.87, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.07, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.07


>.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that respondents of different

age group perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Credibility’.

The mean value for ‘Connecting people’ given by the respondents of age

group ’25 to 35 years’ is 3.14, ’36 to 45 years’ is 3.44, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.81 and




outcome based on ‘Connecting people’.


network’ as given by the respondents of the age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 3.67, ’36 to

45 years’ is 3.84, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.99 and ‘>56 years’ 3.65. The F value is 3.625


implies that ‘Strength in accessing network’ does impact across the different age

groups.

188

Table 5.8.6 Age Vs Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Age in Years F

value

P

value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72

1 Accuracy Mean 4 4.02 4.11 3.9

0.875 0.45 SD 0.72 0.85 0.88 0.81

2 Credibility Mean 3.87 4.07 4.07 3.9

1.305 0.27 SD 0.91 0.95 0.77 0.81

3 Connecting people Mean 3.14 3.44 3.81 3.12

5.816 0.001* SD 1.19 1.21 1.17 1.05

Strength in

accessing

Mean 3.67 3.84 3.99 3.65

3.625 0.013* SD 0.76 0.82 0.69 0.78


5.8.7 Age Vs Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources











the age. The average score of ‘Requiring special equipment’ given by the respondents



<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Requiring special

equipment’ does impact across the different age groups.




’46 to 55 years’ is 1.8 and ‘>56’ is 2.06. The F value is 7.273 and significant value is

189

0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that respondents

of different age group do seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Requiring

training’.

The mean value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ given by the respondents of age





outcome based on ‘Expected Facilitation’.

Table 5.8.7 Age Vs Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Age in Years F

value

P

value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72

1

Requiring

special

equipment

Mean 2.43 2.3 1.76 2.17 5.641 0.001*

SD 1.25 1.17 1.14 0.97

2 Requiring

training

Mean 2.54 2.2 1.8 2.06 7.273 0.000*

SD 1.18 0.95 1.03 0.99

Expected

Facilitation

Mean 2.49 2.25 1.78 2.11 7.592 0.000*

SD 1.08 0.94 1.03 0.94


5.8.8 Age Vs Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources





independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of ‘F8

Core purpose’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Teaching’ and ‘Research’ are

computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based on their age

’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55 years’ and ‘>56’ which are Independent

variables.


the age. The average score of ‘Teaching’ given by the respondents whose age is ’25 to

35 years’ is 3.94, ’36 to 45 years’ is 3.8, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.99 and ‘>56 years’ is

190


difference is not significant which implies that ‘Teaching’ does not impact across the



categorized based on their age. The average score given by the respondents whose age

group is from’25 to 35 years’ is 4.75, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.85, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.82

and ‘>56’ is 4.57. The F value is 5.035 and significant value is 0.002 since it is <.05

the mean difference is significant which implies that respondents of different age

group perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Research’.

The mean value for ‘Core purpose’ given by the respondents of age group ’25



difference existing between respondents of different age group is statistically not

significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the

targeted outcome based on ‘Core purpose’.

Table 5.8.8 Age Vs Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Age in Years F

value

P

value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72

1 Teaching Mean 3.94 3.8 3.99 3.88

0.785 0.503 SD 1.07 1.07 0.77 0.88

2 Research Mean 4.75 4.85 4.82 4.57

5.035 0.002* SD 0.6 0.38 0.39 0.76

Core

purpose

Mean 4.34 4.37 4.41 4.24 1.086 0.355

SD 0.78 0.66 0.4 0.67


5.8.9 Age Vs Value Addition






addition’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Downloading possibilities’ and


191

classified based on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55 years’ and

‘>56’ which are Independent variables.


the age. The average score of ‘Downloading possibilities’ given by the respondents



>.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Downloading

possibilities’ does not impact across the different age groups.






respondents of different age group perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Full text

retrieval’.

The mean value for ‘Value addition’ given by the respondents of age group

’25 to 35 years’ is 4.38, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.43, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.32 and ‘>56


mean difference existing between respondents of different age group is statistically


targeted outcome based on ‘Value addition’.

Table 5.8.9 Age Vs Value Addition

S/N

Age in Years F

value

P

value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72

1 Downloading

possibilities

Mean 4.44 4.39 4.28 4.54 2.044 0.107

SD 0.65 0.66 0.7 0.7

2 Full text

retrieval

Mean 4.35 4.47 4.34 4.58 1.743 0.158

SD 0.74 0.72 0.86 0.69

Value

addition

Mean 4.38 4.43 4.32 4.56 1.899 0.129

SD 0.66 0.63 0.71 0.67


192

5.8.10 Age Vs Satisfaction







Resources subscribed by the library’, ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-




from using INDEST E-Resources’ and ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-

Resources’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based

on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55 years’ and ‘>56’ which are



the age. The average score of ‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the

library’ given by the respondents whose age is ’25 to 35 years’ is 3.77, ’36 to 45



implies that ‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the library’ does impact




their age. The average score given by the respondents whose age group is from’25 to

35 years’ is 3.59, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.05, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.63 and ‘>56’ is 4.06.


is significant which implies that respondents of different age group seem to perceive

in different ways with regard to ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-Resources

in your library’.


given by the respondents of age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 3.47, ’36 to 45 years’ is 3.94,


193

value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between respondents of

different age group is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant

effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Number of INDEST E-

Resources available in library’.


INDEST E-Resources available in library’ as given by the respondents of the age


‘>56 years’ 3.83. The F value is 2.157 and significant value is 0.093 since it is >.05

the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Back volumes of INDEST

E-Resources available in library’ does not impact across the different age groups.


enable you to meet your needs’ given by the respondents of age group’25 to 35 years’

is 3.39, ’36 to 45 years’ is 3.98, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.55 and ‘>56 years’ is 4.06. The F


significant which implies that ‘How far INDEST E-Resources available in library

enable you to meet your needs’ does impact across the different age groups.

The average score of ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-Resources’

given by the respondents of age group’25 to 35 years’ is 3.7, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.11,



‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-Resources’ does impact across the


The average score of ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-

Resources’ given by the respondents of age group’25 to 35 years’ is 3.87, ’36 to 45

years’ is 4.37, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.05 and ‘>56 years’ is 4.08. The F value is 6.27 and


implies that ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-Resources’ does impact


The average score of ‘Satisfaction’ given by the respondents of age group’25



difference is significant which implies that ‘Satisfaction’ does impact across the


194

Table 5.8.10 Age Vs Satisfaction

S/N

Age in Years F

value

P

value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72

1

Required INDEST E-

Resources subscribed

by the library

Mean 3.77 4.31 3.68 4.04 10.28 0.000*

SD 1.02 0.71 1.21 0.96

2

Subject coverage of

available INDEST E-

Resources in your

library

Mean 3.59 4.05 3.63 4.06

6.695 0.000* SD 0.88 0.93 1.09 0.97

3

Number of INDEST

E-Resources available

in library

Mean 3.47 3.94 3.57 4.03 6.819 0.000*

SD 0.99 0.9 1.06 0.96

4

Back volumes of

INDEST E-Resources

available in library

Mean 3.39 3.58 3.55 3.83 2.157 0.093

SD 1.01 1.07 0.99 1.18

5

How far INDEST E-


library enable you to

meet your needs

Mean 3.39 3.98 3.55 4.06

8.515 0.000* SD 1.17 0.96 1.1 0.99

6

Satisfaction obtained

from using INDEST

E-Resources

Mean 3.7 4.11 3.76 4.15 7.972 0.000*

SD 0.73 0.62 0.94 0.91

7

Infrastructure

available to Access

INDEST E-Resources

Mean 3.87 4.37 4.05 4.08 6.27 0.000*

SD 0.98 0.74 1.07 0.81

Satisfaction

Mean 3.6 4.06 3.69 4.04 7.579 0.000*

SD 0.87 0.68 0.96 0.88


5.8.11 Age Vs Importance of INDEST E-Resources











195


the age. The average score of ‘Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for your

research’ given by the respondents whose age is ’25 to 35 years’ is 4.55, ’36 to 45



implies that ‘Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for your research’ does impact




based on their age. The average score given by the respondents whose age group is

from’25 to 35 years’ is 4.54, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.67, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.61 and ‘>56

years’ is 4.37. The F value is 2.742 and significant value is 0.043 since it is <.05 the

mean difference is significant which implies that respondents of different age group

seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Do you think that the information

content of INDEST E-Resources is useful’.

The mean value for ‘Importance’ given by the respondents of age group ’25 to

35 years’ is 4.55, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.66, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.63 and ‘>56 years’ is


difference existing between respondents of different age group is statistically


outcome based on ‘Importance’.

Table 5.8.11 Age Vs Importance of INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Age in Years F

value

P

value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72

1

Importance of the INDEST

E-Resources for your

research

Mean 4.55 4.64 4.66 4.34 3.123 0.026

SD 0.67 0.55 0.64 1.15

2




useful

Mean 4.54 4.67 4.61 4.37

2.742 0.043* SD 0.72 0.51 0.65 1.15

Importance

Mean 4.55 4.66 4.63 4.36 3.159 0.025

SD 0.66 0.46 0.63 1.14


196

5.8.12 Age Vs Reading Pattern of INDEST E-Resources by IIT Faculty





independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the one attribute of

Reading pattern’ are the dependent variables such as ‘Read electronic(on monitor)’

and ‘Read print out’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents

classified based on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55 years’ and

‘>56 years’ which are Independent variables.


the age. The mean value for ‘Read electronic(on monitor)’ given by the respondents of

age group ’25 to 35 yrs’ is 4.16, ’36 to 45 yrs’ is 4.28, ’46 to 55 yrs’ is 4.09 and ‘>56

yrs’ is 4.21. The F value is 0.953 and significant value is 0.415 since it is >.05 the

mean difference existing between respondents of different age group is statistically


targeted outcome based on ‘Read electronic (on monitor)’.



2.91, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.65 and ‘>56 years’ 3.18. The F value is 9.304 and


implies that ‘Read print out’ does impact across the different age group.

Table 5.8.12 Age Vs Reading Pattern of INDEST E-Resources by IIT Faculty

S/N

Age in Years F

value

P

value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72


monitor)

Mean 4.16 4.28 4.09 4.21 0.953 0.415

SD 0.89 0.81 0.96 0.99

2 Read print out Mean 3.49 2.91 3.65 3.18

9.304 0.000* SD 1.06 1.13 1.12 1.19


197

Fig. 35: Age wise Factors analysis

5.8.13 Summary




Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance and Read Pattern of IIT Faculty by age wise

using INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs. The summary of section 5.8

indicate that F value is 1.855 and significant value is 0.137 since it is >.05 the mean

difference is not significant which implies that ‘Basic Advantages’ does not impact

across the different age group (Table 5.8.1), The F value is 1.178 and significant value


‘Disadvantages’ does not impact across the different age groups (Table 5.8.2), The F


significant which implies that ‘Augmented Purpose’ does impact across the different

age groups (Table 5.8.3), The F value is 3.102 and significant value is 0.027 since it is

<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Availability and

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

F1 Basic

Advantages

F2

Disadvantages

F3 Augmented

Purpose

F4 Availability

and

accessibility

F5 Limitation

of accessing

system

F6 Strength in

accessing

network

F7 Expected

Facilitation

F8 Core

purpose

F9 Value

addition

Mea

n S

core

25 to 35 yrs 36 - 45 46 - 55 >56

198

accessibility’ does impact across the different age groups (Table 5.8.4), The F value is


which implies that ‘Limitation of accessing system’ does impact across the different

age groups(Table 5.8.5), The F value is 3.625 and significant value is 0.013 since it is

<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Strength in accessing

network’ does impact across the different age groups(Table 5.8.6), The F value is


between respondents of different age group is statistically significant at 5% level. This

shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on Expected

Facilitation(Table 5.8.7), The F value is 1.086 and significant value is 0.355 since it is

>.05 the mean difference existing between respondents of different age group is


evident on the targeted outcome based on Core purpose(Table 5.8.8), The F value is

1.899 and significant value is 0.129 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing

between respondents of different age group is statistically not significant at 5% level.

This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on

Value addition (Table 5.8.9), The F value is 7.579 and significant value is 0.000 since

it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Satisfaction’ does

impact across the different age groups (Table 5.8.10), The F value is 3.159 and


respondents of different age group is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows

that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on Importance

(Table 5.8.11), The F value is 9.304 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the

mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Read print out’ does impact across

the different age group(Table 5.8.12).

199

SECTION 9

COMPUTER LITERACY IN USING OF INDEST E-RESOURCES BY THE

FACULTY OF IITS

5.9.0 Introduction




Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance, Reading Pattern of INDEST E-Resources

by IIT Faculty, Computer Literacy in using INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top

seven IITs.

Hypothesis IV

Ho: There is no significant difference on Perception on INDEST usage Vs Computer

literacy.

Ha: There is significant difference on Perception on INDEST usage Vs Computer

literacy.

5.9.1 Computer Literacy Vs Basic Advantage





independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the five attributes of ‘Basic

Advantages’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘User-friendly interface’,



respondents classified based on their computer literacy(‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’)



their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘User-friendly interface’ given by the

respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.25, ‘Good’ is 4.28 and ‘Average’

is 4.08. The F value is 0.818 and significant value is 0.442 since it is >.05 the mean

200

difference is not significant which implies that ‘User-friendly interface’ does not

impact across different level of computer literacy.


respondents’ categorized based on their Computer literacy. The average score given

by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.18, ‘Good’ is 4.27 and

‘Average’ is 4.04. The F value is 1.172 and significant value is 0.311 since it is >.05


computer literacy perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Retrieval possibilities’.




difference existing between respondents with different computer literacy is


evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Searchability/search capabilities’.


information)’ as given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is

4.19,‘Good’ is 4.32 and ‘Average’ is 4.2. The F value is 1.145 and significant value is


‘Currency (Up-to-date information)’ does not impact across different level of

computer literacy.

The mean value for ‘Convenience’ given by the respondents whose computer

literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.32, ‘Good’ is 4.33 and ‘Average’ is 4.11. The F value is 0.928

and significant value is 0.396 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing between

respondents with different computer literacy is statistically not significant at 5% level.

This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on

‘Convenience’.

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Basic Advantages’ as

given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.27,‘Good’ is 4.3 and


the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Basic Advantages’ does not


201

Table 5.9.1 Computer Literacy Vs Basic Advantage

S/N

Computer Literacy F

value

P

value Expert Good Average

N=120 N=263 N=28

1 User-friendly interface Mean 4.25 4.28 4.08

0.82 0.442 SD 0.84 0.75 0.84

2 Retrieval possibilities Mean 4.18 4.27 4.04

1.17 0.311 SD 0.94 0.78 0.81


capabilities

Mean 4.4 4.29 4.08 2.04 0.132

SD 0.9 0.74 0.8

4 Currency (Up-to-date

information)

Mean 4.19 4.32 4.2 1.15 0.319

SD 0.9 0.76 0.76

5 Convenience Mean 4.32 4.33 4.11

0.93 0.396 SD 0.8 0.76 1.15

Basic Advantages

Mean 4.27 4.3 4.08 1.45 0.236

SD 0.75 0.59 0.79


5.9.2 Computer Literacy Vs Disadvantage






‘Disadvantages’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Perishable citation’, ‘Format



perception of respondents classified based on their computer literacy(‘Expert’,

‘Good’, ‘Average’) which are Independent variables.


their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Perishable citation’ given by the



difference is not significant which implies that ‘Perishable citation’ does not impact

across different level of computer literacy.


the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on their Computer literacy. The

202

average score given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 2.39,

‘Good’ is 2.38 and ‘Average’ is 2.2. The F value is 0.382 and significant value is


respondents with different computer literacy perceive in similar ways with regard to

‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal use’.

The mean value for ‘Lack of standardized formats’ given by the respondents

whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 2.58, ‘Good’ is 2.58 and ‘Average’ is 2.15. The

F value is 1.592 and significant value is 0.205 since it is >.05 the mean difference

existing between respondents with different computer literacy is statistically not


targeted outcome based on ‘Lack of standardized formats’.




the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Authenticity’ does not


The mean value for ‘Search engines ignores PDF files’ given by the





evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Search engine ignores PDF files’.

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Disadvantages’ as

given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 2.33,‘Good’ is 2.27

and ‘Average’ is 2.16. The F value is 0.419 and significant value is 0.658 since it is

>.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Disadvantages’ does

not impact across different level of computer literacy.

203

Table 5.9.2 Computer Literacy Vs Disadvantage

S/N

Computer Literacy F

value

P


N=120 N=263 N=28

1 Perishable citation Mean 2.43 2.31 2.2

0.7 0.5 SD 1.15 0.98 1.32

2

Format that a large

proportion of e-journal

use

Mean 2.39 2.38 2.2 0.38 0.683

SD 1.18 0.92 1.22


formats

Mean 2.58 2.58 2.15 1.59 0.205

SD 1.22 1.19 1.29

4 Authenticity Mean 2.21 2.22 2.08

0.22 0.806 SD 1.11 1.1 1.26

5 Search engines ignores

PDF files

Mean 2.08 2.01 2.19 0.43 0.652

SD 1.1 1.02 1.26

Disadvantages

Mean 2.33 2.27 2.16 0.42 0.658

SD 1 0.85 1.2


5.9.3 Computer Literacy Vs Augmented Purpose










perception of respondents classified based on their computer literacy(‘Expert’,

‘Good’, ‘Average’) which are Independent variables.


their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’ given


‘Average’ is 3.85. The F value is 5.735 and significant value is 0.004 since it is <.05

the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’

does impact across different level of computer literacy.

204


perception of the respondents’ categorized based on their Computer literacy. The

average score given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.23,


0.007 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that respondents

with different computer literacy seem to perceive in different ways with regard to

‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’.



F value is 2.046 and significant value is 0.131 since it is >.05 the mean difference



targeted outcome based on ‘To get latest facts and statistics’.


Technical field’ as given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is

4.18,‘Good’ is 4.25 and ‘Average’ is 3.88. The F value is 1.374 and significant value

is 0.254 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘To

know the trends in Technical field’ does not impact across different level of computer

literacy.

The mean value for ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in

the field’ given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.29,


0.155 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different

computer literacy is statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that a

significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘To get

comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in the field’.

The mean value for ‘To write Articles’ given by the respondents whose

computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.46, ‘Good’ is 4.41 and ‘Average’ is 3.89. The F


existing between respondents with different computer literacy is statistically


outcome based on ‘To write Articles’.

205

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Augmented Purpose’

as given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.32, ‘Good’ is

4.26 and ‘Average’ is 3.82. The F value is 5.137 and significant value is 0.006 since it

is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Augmented Purpose’


Table 5.9.3 Computer Literacy Vs Augmented Purpose

S/N

Computer Literacy F

value

P


N=120 N=263 N=28


subject

Mean 4.48 4.45 3.85 5.74 0.004*

SD 0.68 1 1.01


workshops etc

Mean 4.23 4.07 3.56 5.06 0.007*

SD 0.88 0.99 1.04


statistics

Mean 4.25 4.07 3.85 2.05 0.131

SD 1.08 0.98 0.92


Technical field

Mean 4.18 4.25 3.88 1.37 0.254

SD 0.93 1.13 1.24

5


knowledge and be

competitive in the field

Mean 4.29 4.15 3.88 1.87 0.155

SD 0.86 1.06 0.97

6 To write Articles Mean 4.46 4.41 3.89

6.65 0.001* SD 0.76 0.74 0.97

Augmented Purpose

Mean 4.32 4.26 3.82 5.14 0.006*

SD 0.59 0.78 0.88


5.9.4 Computer Literacy Vs Availability and Accessibility






‘Availability and Accessibility’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Prompt



their computer literacy(‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’) which are Independent variables.


their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours a

206

day)’ given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.31, ‘Good’ is

4.23 and ‘Average’ is 4.28. The F value is 0.238 and significant value is 0.788 since it

is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Prompt accessibility

(7/24 hours a day)’ does not impact across different level of computer literacy.






computer literacy seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Desktop

availability’.

The mean value for ‘Free access’ given by the respondents whose computer

literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.42, ‘Good’ is 3.86 and ‘Average’ is 4.48. The F value is


between respondents with different computer literacy is statistically significant at 5%


on ‘Free access’.




<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Multiuser access’ does


The mean value for ‘Availability and accessibility’ given by the respondents


F value is 4.4598 and significant value is 0.012 since it is <.05 the mean difference



outcome based on ‘Availability and accessibility’.

207

Table 5.9.4 Computer Literacy Vs Availability and Accessibility

S/N

Computer Literacy F

value P value Expert Good Average

N=120 N=263 N=28

1 Prompt accessibility

(7/24 hours a day)

Mean 4.31 4.23 4.28 0.24 0.788

SD 0.88 1.13 0.61

2 Desktop availability Mean 4.52 4.17 4.52

5.93 0.003* SD 0.8 1.06 0.65

3 Free access Mean 4.42 3.86 4.48

14.4 0.000* SD 0.86 1.09 0.71

4 Multiuser access Mean 3.67 3.51 2.6

8.23 0.000* SD 1.1 1.23 1.5

Availability and

accessibility

Mean 4.24 3.95 3.97 4.46 0.012*

SD 0.74 0.91 0.68


5.9.5 Computer Literacy Vs Limitation of Accessing System












their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’

given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 2.7, ‘Good’ is 2.58


<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Difficulty reading

computer screens’ does impact across different level of computer literacy.


of the respondents’ categorized based on their Computer literacy. The average score

208


and ‘Average’ is 1.81. The F value is 2.936 and significant value is 0.054.




<.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different computer

literacy is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was

evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Often not included in indexing and

abstracting services’.


accessing system’ as given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is

2.7,‘Good’ is 2.44 and ‘Average’ is 1.79. The F value is 6.713 and significant value is

0.001 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Limitation

of accessing system’ does impact across different level of computer literacy.

Table 5.9.5 Computer Literacy Vs Limitation of Accessing System

S/N

Computer Literacy F


N=120 N=263 N=28


computer screens

Mean 2.7 2.58 1.77 5.397 0.005*

SD 1.45 1.31 0.95

2 Limitations of

computer monitor

Mean 2.5 2.38 1.81 2.936 0.054*

SD 1.32 1.37 1.02

3


indexing and


Mean 2.87 2.37 1.81 9.102 0.000*

SD 1.58 1.21 1.02

Limitation of

accessing system

Mean 2.7 2.44 1.79 6.713 0.001*

SD 1.35 1.1 0.93


5.9.6 Computer Literacy Vs Strength in Accessing Network







209





their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Accuracy’ given by the respondents


F value is 1.333 and significant value is 0.265 since it is >.05 the mean difference is

not significant which implies that ‘Accuracy’ does not impact across different level of

computer literacy.


categorized based on their Computer literacy. The average score given by the


is 3.67. The F value is 5.173 and significant value is 0.006 since it is <.05 the mean

difference is significant which implies that respondents with different computer

literacy seem to perceive different.

The mean value for ‘Connecting people’ given by the respondents whose





targeted outcome based on ‘Connecting people’.

The average score for the perception on ‘Strength in accessing network’ as



>.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Strength in accessing

network’ does not impact across different level of computer literacy.

210

Table 5.9.6 Computer Literacy Vs Strength in Accessing Network

S/N

Computer Literacy F


N=120 N=263 N=28

1 Accuracy Mean 4.06 4.02 3.78

1.333 0.265 SD 0.88 0.79 0.85

2 Credibility Mean 3.85 4.1 3.67

5.173 0.006* SD 1.03 0.78 0.96

3 Connecting people Mean 3.62 3.33 3.22

2.57 0.078 SD 1.31 1.13 1.22

4 Strength in accessing

network

Mean 3.84 3.82 3.56 1.605 0.202

SD 0.88 0.71 0.9


5.9.7 Computer Literacy Vs Expected Facilitation








respondents classified based on their computer literacy (‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’)



their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Requiring special equipment’ given by

the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 1.85, ‘Good’ is 2.31 and


the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Requiring special equipment’





‘Average’ is 2. The F value is 6.962 and significant value is 0.001 since it is <.05 the

211

mean difference is significant which implies that respondents with different computer

literacy perceive different with regard to ‘Requiring training’.

The mean value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ given by the respondents whose

computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 1.85, ‘Good’ is 2.3 and ‘Average’ is 2.14. The F value

is 7.823 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing

between respondents with different computer literacy is statistically significant at 5%


on ‘Expected Facilitation’.

Table 5.9.7 Computer Literacy Vs Expected Facilitation

S/N

Computer Literacy F


N=120 N=263 N=28

1 Requiring special

equipment

Mean 1.85 2.31 2.28 6.383 0.002*

SD 1.16 1.14 1.21

2 Requiring training Mean 1.85 2.29 2

6.962 0.001* SD 1.08 1.01 1.12

3 Expected Facilitation Mean 1.85 2.3 2.14

7.823 0.000* SD 1.06 0.95 1.13


5.9.8 Computer Literacy Vs Core Purpose






purpose’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Teaching’ and ‘Research’ are

computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based on their

computer literacy(‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’) which are Independent variables.


their Computer literacy. The average score for ‘Teaching’ given by the respondents

whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.14, ‘Good’ is 3.81and ‘Average’ is 3.54. The

F value is 6.456 and significant value is 0.002 since it is <.05 the mean difference is

significant which implies that ‘Teaching’ does impact by the level of their computer

literacy.

212


categorized based on their Computer literacy. The average score given by the


is 4.42. The F value is 12.755 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean

difference is significant which implies that respondents with different computer

literacy seem to perceive differently with regard to ‘Research’.

The mean value for ‘Core purpose’ given by the respondents whose computer


and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between

respondents with different computer literacy is statistically significant at 5% level.


‘Core purpose’.

Table 5.9.8 Computer Literacy Vs Core Purpose

S/N

Computer Literacy F


N=120 N=263 N=28

1 Teaching Mean 4.14 3.81 3.54

6.456 0.002* SD 0.84 0.96 1.3

2 Research Mean 4.93 4.74 4.42

12.755 0.000* SD 0.25 0.53 0.9

3 Core purpose Mean 4.55 4.3 3.98

11.392 0.000* SD 0.45 0.63 0.99


5.9.9 Computer Literacy Vs Value Addition






Addition’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Downloading Possibilities’ and


classified based on their computer literacy(‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’) which are


213


their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Downloading possibilities’ given by


‘Average’ is 4.3. The F value is 1.004 and significant value is 0.367 since it is >.05 the

mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Downloading Possibilities’ does

not impact by the level of their computer literacy.






computer literacy perceive in the same way with regard to ‘Retrieval possibilities’.

The mean value for ‘Value Addition’ given by the respondents whose



existing between respondents with different level of computer literacy is statistically


targeted outcome based on ‘Value Addition’.

Table 5.9.9 Computer Literacy Vs Value Addition

S/N

Computer Literacy F


N=120 N=263 N=28

1 Downloading

possibilities

Mean 4.35 4.44 4.3 1.004 0.367

SD 0.78 0.6 0.87

2 Full text retrieval Mean 4.56 4.41 4.26

2.488 0.084 SD 0.66 0.77 0.9

3 Value addition Mean 4.45 4.42 4.28

0.784 0.457 SD 0.68 0.63 0.88


5.9.10 Computer Literacy Vs Satisfaction





214



Resources subscribed by the library, ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-




from using INDEST E-Resources’ and ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST

E-Resources’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents classified

based on their computer literacy(‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’) which are Independent

variables.


their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Required INDEST E-Resources

subscribed by the library’ given by the respondents whose computer literacy is

‘Expert’ is 4.08, ‘Good’ is 4.02 and ‘Average’ is 3.65. The F value is 2.065 and


implies that ‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the library’ does not




their Computer literacy. The average score given by the respondents whose computer


and significant value is 0.402 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant

which implies that respondents with different level of computer literacy perceive in

similar ways with regard to ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-Resources in

your library’.




>.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different level of


significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Number of

INDEST E-Resources available in library’.

215


INDEST E-Resources available in library’ as given by the respondents whose

computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 3.66,‘Good’ is 3.58 and ‘Average’ is 3.28. The F value

is 1.327 and significant value is 0.266 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not

significant which implies that ‘Back volumes of INDEST E-Resources available in

library’ does not impact across different level of computer literacy.

The mean value for ‘How far INDEST E-Resources available in library enable

you to meet your needs’ given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’

is 3.91, ‘Good’ is 3.74 and ‘Average’ is 3.64. The F value is 1.258 and significant

value is 0.285 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with

different level of computer literacy is statistically not significant at 5% level. This

shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘How

far INDEST E-Resources available in library enable you to meet your needs’.

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Satisfaction obtained

from using INDEST E-Resources’ as given by the respondents whose computer

literacy is ‘Expert’ is 3.94,‘Good’ is 3.97 and ‘Average’ is 3.88. The F value is 0.176

and significant value is 0.839 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant

which implies that ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-Resources’ does not

impact across the different level of computer literacy.

The mean value for ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-Resources’



>.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different level of


significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Infrastructure

available to Access INDEST E-Resources’.

The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Satisfaction’ as given



the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Satisfaction’ does not impact

across the different level of computer literacy.

216

Table 5.9.10 Computer Literacy Vs Satisfaction

S/N

Computer Literacy F


N=120 N=263 N=28

1 Required INDEST E-Resources

subscribed by the library

Mean 4.08 4.02 3.65 2.065 0.128

SD 0.98 1 0.74

2



library

Mean 3.96 3.83 3.73 0.914 0.402

SD 0.98 1.02 0.67

3 Number of INDEST E-Resources

available in library

Mean 3.82 3.77 3.68 0.23 0.795

SD 0.97 1.03 0.63



Mean 3.66 3.58 3.28 1.327 0.266

SD 1 1.11 0.89

5


available in library enable you to

meet your needs

Mean 3.91 3.74 3.64 1.258 0.285

SD 0.97 1.13 0.81

6 Satisfaction obtained from using

INDEST E-Resources

Mean 3.94 3.97 3.88 0.176 0.839

SD 0.92 0.77 0.53

7 Infrastructure available to Access

INDEST E-Resources

Mean 4.23 4.12 4.08 0.644 0.526

SD 1.01 0.89 0.49

8 Satisfaction Mean 3.95 3.87 3.71

0.982 0.376 SD 0.89 0.86 0.47


5.9.11 Computer Literacy by Importance












their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Importance of the INDEST E-

Resources for your research’ given by the respondents whose computer literacy is

‘Expert’ is 4.65, ‘Good’ is 4.57 and ‘Average’ is 4.23. The F value is 3.59 and

217


implies that ‘Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for your research’ does impact




based on their Computer literacy. The average score given by the respondents whose

computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.78, ‘Good’ is 4.53 and ‘Average’ is 4.2. The F value

is 8.414 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is

significant which implies that respondents with different level of computer literacy

perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Do you think that the information content of

INDEST E-Resources is useful’.

The mean value for ‘Importance’ given by the respondents whose computer


and significant value is 0.002 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between

respondents with different computer literacy is statistically significant at 5% level.


‘Importance’.

Table 5.9.11 Computer Literacy Vs Importance

S/N

Computer Literacy F


N=120 N=263 N=28


Resources for your research

Mean 4.65 4.57 4.23 3.59 0.029*

SD 0.66 0.78 0.59

2

Do you think that the information

content of INDEST E-Resources

is useful

Mean 4.78 4.53 4.2

8.414 0.000* SD 0.62 0.79 0.5

3 Importance Mean 4.72 4.55 4.21

6.142 0.002* SD 0.6 0.75 0.51

*Significant at 5%level

5.9.12 Computer Literacy Vs Reading Pattern of INDEST E-Resources by IIT

Faculty





218

independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the one attribute of

‘Reading Pattern’ that is dependent variables such as ‘Read electronic(on monitor)’

and ‘Read print out’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents

classified based on their computer literacy(‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’) which are



their Computer literacy. The mean value for ‘Read electronic(on monitor)’ given by


‘Average’ is 4.1. The F value is 0.726 and significant value is 0.484 since it is >.05 the

mean difference existing between respondents with different computer literacy is


evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Read electronic (on monitor)’.



and ‘Average’ is 4. The F value is 6.407 and significant value is 0.002 since it is <.05

the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Read print out’ does impact


Table 5.9.12 Computer Literacy Vs Reading Pattern of INDEST E-Resources

S/N

Computer Literacy F

value

P


N=120 N=263 N=28

1 Read electronic

(on monitor)

Mean 4.28 4.18 4.1 0.726 0.484

SD 0.86 0.93 0.7

2 Read print out Mean 3.16 3.17 4

6.407 0.002* SD 1.33 1.09 0.91


5.9.13 Summary

This section I deal with the testing of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Basic



Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance and Read Pattern of IIT Faculty by

Computer Literacy in using INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs. The

summary of section 5.9 indicate that the F value is 1.448 and significant value is 0.236

since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Basic

219

Advantages’ does not impact across different level of computer literacy(Table 5.9.1),


is not significant which implies that ‘Disadvantages’ does not impact across different

level of computer literacy (Table 5.9.2), The F value is 5.137 and significant value is

0.006 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that

‘Augmented Purpose’ does impact across different level of computer literacy (Table

5.9.3), The F value is 4.4598 and significant value is 0.012 since it is <.05 the mean



the targeted outcome based on ‘Availability and accessibility’ (Table 5.9.4), The F


significant which implies that ‘Limitation of accessing system’ does impact across

different level of computer literacy (Table 5.9.5), The F value is 1.605 and significant


‘Strength in accessing network’ does not impact across different level of computer

literacy (Table 5.9.6), The F value is 7.823 and significant value is 0.000 since it is

<.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different computer

literacy is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was

evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Expected Facilitation’ (Table 5.9.7), The F




outcome based on ‘Core purpose’ (Table 5.9.8), The F value is 0.784 and significant

value is 0.457 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with

different level of computer literacy is statistically not significant at 5% level. This

shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on

‘Value Addition’ (Table 5.9.9), The F value is 0.982 and significant value is 0.376

since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Satisfaction’

does not impact across the different level of computer literacy (Table 5.9.10), The F




outcome based on ‘Importance’ (Table 5.9.11), The F value is 6.407 and significant


‘Read print out’ does impact across different level of computer literacy (Table 5.9.12).

220

SECTION 10

FACTOR INFLUENCING USEOF INDEST E-RESOURCES BY IIT

FACULTY MEMBERS

5.10.0Introduction

This section deals with the (correlations between) factors influencing use of

INDEST E-Resources by IIT faculty members. Factors by Satisfaction; factors by

importance; factors by Read electronic (on monitor); factors by read print out

influencing in use of INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs.

Correlations

Hypothesis V

Ho: There is no relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs

Satisfaction.

Ha: There is relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs Satisfaction.

5.10.1 Factors by Satisfaction

Table 5.10.1 provides the details of the Pearson Correlation value and the Sig.

Value for the nine selected attributes and Satisfaction. The Pearson Correlation value

for ‘Basic Advantages’ and ‘Satisfaction’ is .266 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is

significant at 1% level of significance.

‘Disadvantages’ and ‘Satisfaction’ has a Pearson correlation value of -.061 and

the significant value is .12 as the significance value is >.05 the correlation is not


‘Augmented Purpose’ and ‘Satisfaction’ has a Pearson correlation value of

.371 and the Significance value is 0, hence the correlation is significant at 1% level of

significance.

The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Availability and accessibility’ and

‘Satisfaction’ is .484 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is significant at 1% level of

significance.

‘Limitation of accessing system’ and ‘Satisfaction’ has a Pearson correlation

value of -.051 and the significant value is .16 as the significance value is >.05 the

correlation is not significant at 5% level of significance.

221

‘Strength in accessing network’ and ‘Satisfaction’ has a Pearson correlation

value of .071 and the Significance value is 0.08, hence the correlation is not


The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ and ‘Satisfaction’ is

-.133 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is significant at 1% level of significance.

‘Core purpose’ and ‘Satisfaction’ has a Pearson correlation value of .397 and

the Significance value is 0.0, hence the correlation is significant at 1% level of

significance.

The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Value addition’ and ‘Satisfaction’ is .165

with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is significant at 1% level of significance.

Table 5.10.1 Factors by Satisfaction

S/N Factors

Satisfaction

N=411

1 Basic Advantages Pearson Correlation .266**

Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00

2 Disadvantages Pearson Correlation -0.061


3 Augmented Purpose Pearson Correlation .371**


4 Availability and accessibility Pearson Correlation .484**


5 Limitation of accessing system Pearson Correlation -0.051


6 Strength in accessing network Pearson Correlation 0.071


7 Expected Facilitation Pearson Correlation -.133**


8 Core purpose Pearson Correlation .397**


9 Value addition Pearson Correlation .165**


**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

222

Fig. 36 Factors by Satisfaction

Factors by Importance

Hypothesis VI

Ho: There is no relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs

Importance.

Ha: There is relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs Importance.

5.10.2 Factors by Importance

Table 5.10.2 provides the details of the Pearson Correlation value and the Sig.

Value for the nine selected attributes and Importance. The Pearson Correlation value

for ‘Basic Advantages’ and ‘Importance’ is .411 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is


‘Disadvantages’ and ‘Importance’ has a Pearson correlation value of -.177 and

the significant value is .0 as the significance value is <.01 the correlation is significant

at 1% level of significance.

‘Augmented Purpose’ and ‘Importance’ has a Pearson correlation value of

.246 and the Significance value is 0, hence the correlation is significant at 1% level of

significance.

The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Availability and accessibility’ and

‘Importance’ is .253 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is significant at 1% level of

significance.

0.27

-0.06

0.37

0.48

-0.05

0.07

-0.13

0.40

0.17

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

Pea

rson C

orr

elat

ion

223

‘Limitation of accessing system’ and ‘Importance’ has a Pearson correlation

value of -.101 and the significant value is .02 as the significance value is <.05 the

correlation is significant at 5% level of significance.

‘Strength in accessing network’ and ‘Importance’ has a Pearson correlation

value of .169 and the Significance value is 0, hence the correlation is significant at 1%

level of significance.

The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ and ‘Importance’ is -

.267 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is significant at 1% level of significance.

‘Core purpose’ and ‘Importance’ has a Pearson correlation value of .282 and

the Significance value is 0.0, hence the correlation is significant at 1% level of

significance.

The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Value addition’ and ‘Importance’ is .215


Table 5.10.2 Factors by Importance

S/N Factors

Importance

N=411



2 Disadvantages Pearson Correlation -.177**




4 Availability and accessibility Pearson Correlation .253**


5 Limitation of accessing

system

Pearson Correlation -.101*


6 Strength in accessing

network

Pearson Correlation .169**


7 Expected Facilitation Pearson Correlation -.267**


8 Core purpose Pearson Correlation .282**


9 Value addition Pearson Correlation .215**




224

Fig. 37 Factors by Importance

5.10.3 Factors by Read Electronic (on monitor)

Hypothesis VII

Ho: There is no relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs reading

Electronic version usage.

Ha: There is relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs reading

Electronic version usage.

5.10.3 Factors by Read Electronic (on monitor)

The table 5.10.3provides the details of the Pearson Correlation value and the

Sig. Value for the nine selected attributes and ‘Read Electronic (on monitor)’. The

Pearson Correlation value for ‘Basic Advantages’ and ‘Read Electronics (on monitor)’

is .133 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is significant at 1% level of significance.

‘Disadvantages’ and ‘Read Electronic (on monitor)’ has a Pearson correlation

value of .143 and the significant value is .0 as the significance value is <.01 the


0.41

-0.18

0.25 0.25

-0.10

0.17

-0.27

0.28

0.22

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Pea

rson C

orr

elat

ion

225

‘Augmented Purpose’ and ‘Read Electronic (on monitor)’ has a Pearson

correlation value of .186 and the Significance value is 0, hence the correlation is


The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Availability and accessibility’ and ‘Read

Electronic (on monitor)’ is .263 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is significant at 1%


‘Limitation of accessing system’ and ‘Read Electronic (on monitor)’ has a

Pearson correlation value of -.096 and the significant value is .03 as the significance

value is <.05 the correlation is significant at 5% level of significance.

‘Strength in accessing network’ and ‘Read Electronic (on monitor)’ has a

Pearson correlation value of .05 and the Significance value is 0.15, hence the


The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ and ‘Read

Electronic (on monitor)’ is -.112 with Sig. Value 0.02 hence it is significant at 5%


‘Core purpose’ and ‘Read Electronic (on monitor)’ has a Pearson correlation

value of .085 and the Significance value is 0.05.

The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Value addition’ and ‘Read Electronic (on

monitor)’ is .117 with Sig. Value 0.01 hence it is significant at 1% level of

significance.

226

Table 5.10.3 Factors by Read Electronics (on monitor)

S/N Factors

Read Electronics (on monitor)

N= 411



2 Disadvantages Pearson Correlation .143**




4 Availability and

accessibility

Pearson Correlation .263**


5 Limitation of

accessing system



6 Strength in

accessing network

Pearson Correlation 0.05


7 Expected

Facilitation



8 Core purpose Pearson Correlation .085*


9 Value addition Pearson Correlation .117*




Fig. 38 Factors by Read Electronic (on monitor)

0.13 0.14

0.19

0.26

-0.10

0.05

-0.11

0.09

0.12

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Pea

rson C

orr

elat

ion

227

5.10.4 Factors by Read Print Out

Hypothesis VIII

Ho: There is no relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs reading

print version usage.

Ha: There is relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs reading print

version usage.

5.10.4 Factors by Read Print Out

The table 5.10.4 provides the details of the Pearson Correlation value and the

Sig. Value for the nine selected attributes and ‘Read Print Out’. The Pearson

Correlation value for ‘Basic Advantages’ and ‘Read Print Out’ is -.018 with Sig.

Value 0.36 hence it is not significant at 5% level of significance.

‘Disadvantages’ and ‘Read Print Out’ has a Pearson correlation value of -.094

and the significant value is .04 as the significance value is <.05 the correlation is


‘Augmented Purpose’ and ‘Read Print Out’ has a Pearson correlation value of

-.158 and the Significance value is 0, hence the correlation is significant at 1% level of

significance.

The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Availability and accessibility’ and ‘Read

Print Out’ is -.03 with Sig. Value 0.28 hence it is not significant at 5% level of

significance.

‘Limitation of accessing system’ and ‘Read Print Out’ has a Pearson

correlation value of .175 and the significant value is .0 as the significance value is

<.01 the correlation is not significant at 1% level of significance.

‘Strength in accessing network’ and ‘Read Print Out’ has a Pearson correlation

value of -.007 and the Significance value is 0.44, hence the correlation is not


The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ and ‘Read Print Out’

is -.069 with Sig. Value 0.09 hence it is not significant at 5% level of significance.

228

‘Core purpose’ and ‘Read Print Out’ has a Pearson correlation value of .023

and the Significance value is 0.32, hence the correlation is not significant at 5% level

of significance.

The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Value addition’ and ‘Read Print Out’ is .10


Table 5.10.4 Factors by Read Print Out

S/N Factors

Read Print Out

N= 411

1 Basic Advantages Pearson Correlation -0.018


2 Disadvantages Pearson Correlation -.094*


3 Augmented Purpose Pearson Correlation -.158**


4 Availability and accessibility Pearson Correlation -0.030


5 Limitation of accessing system Pearson Correlation .175**


6 Strength in accessing network Pearson Correlation -0.007


7 Expected Facilitation Pearson Correlation -0.069


8 Core purpose Pearson Correlation 0.023


9 Value addition Pearson Correlation .100*




Fig. 39 Factors by Read Print Out

-0.02

-0.09

-0.16

-0.03

0.18

-0.01

-0.07

0.02

0.10

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

Pea

rson C

orr

elat

ion

229

5.10.5 Summary

This section deals with the (correlations between) factors influencing use of

INDEST E-Resources by IIT faculty members. Factors by Satisfaction; factors by

importance; factors by Read electronic (on monitor); factors by read print out

influencing in use of INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs. The summary

of section 5.10 indicate that correlations between satisfaction and Basic advantages,

Augmented Purpose, Availability and accessibility, Strength in accessing network,

Core Purpose and Value addition are statistically significant at 1% level of

significance. Disadvantages, Limitation of Accessing and Expected Facilitation the

significance value is >.05 the correlation is not significant at 5% level of significance

(Table 5.10.1), Correlations between Importance of INDEST E-Resources and Basic

advantages, Augmented Purpose, Availability and accessibility, Strength in accessing

network, Core Purpose and Value addition are statistically significant at 1% level of

significance. Disadvantages, Limitation of Accessing and Expected Facilitation the

significance value is >.05 the correlation is not significant at 5% level of significance

(Table 5.10.2), correlations between Read Electronic (on monitor) of INDEST E-

Resources and Basic advantages, Disadvantages, Augmented Purpose, Availability

and accessibility, Strength in accessing network, Core Purpose and Value addition are

statistically significant at 1% level of significance. Limitation of Accessing and

Expected Facilitation correlation is not significant at 5% level of significance (Table

5.10.3), (Table 5.10.4).

230

SECTION 11

FACTOR AFFECTING INDEST E-RESOURCES USE ON LEVEL OF

SATISFACTION BY FACULTY OF TOP SEVEN IITS

5.11.0 Introduction

This section deals with the (Regression) factors affecting INDEST E-

Resources usage on level of satisfaction and Importance on faculty of top seven IITs.

Regression

Hypothesis – IX

Ho: There is no linear relationship existing between Factors affecting INDEST Vs

Level of Satisfaction.

Ha: There is linear relationship existing between Factors affecting INDEST Vs

Level of Satisfaction.

Table 5.11.1 Model Scores 1

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable R

R

Square

Adjusted

R Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

Basic Advantages,

Disadvantages,

Augmented Purpose,

Availability and

accessibility,

Limitation of

accessing system,

Strength in

accessing network,

Expected

Facilitation, Core

purpose,

Value addition

Satisfaction 0.621 0.386 0.371 0.673

The table 5.11.1 and 5.11.1.1 shows the impact of Factors affecting INDEST

usage on Satisfaction. The correlation coefficient value (R) is 0.621 for Model1,

which exhibits a very high amount of correlation between the independent

231

variable(Factors affects usage of INDEST) and dependent variable (Satisfaction),

with the F-value being 25.41 and its associated significance level being small

(P<0.01). The R square value gives us the goodness of fit of the regression model.

That is, the amount of variability explained by the whole of the selected predictor

variables in the model for 38.6% (R2%=.100 * x100) of variation in the dependent

variable (Satisfaction).

Table 5.11.1.1ANOVA

ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 103.44 9 11.49

25.41 0.00 Residual 164.56 364 0.45

Total 268.01 373

Table 5.11.2 Coefficients

Coefficients

S/N Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 0.30 0.39 0.77 0.44

Basic Advantages 0.27 0.07 0.20 3.60 0.00

Disadvantages -0.02 0.05 -0.02 -0.43 0.67

Augmented Purpose 0.12 0.05 0.11 2.26 0.02

Availability and accessibility 0.37 0.05 0.38 7.93 0.00

Limitation of accessing system -0.06 0.04 -0.09 -1.72 0.09

Strength in accessing network 0.15 0.05 -0.14 2.75 0.01

Expected Facilitation -0.02 0.04 -0.03 -0.61 0.54

Core purpose 0.41 0.06 0.32 6.93 0.00

Value addition 0.13 0.07 -0.10 1.87 0.06

Table 5.11.2 shows among the Independent variables Basic Advantages,

Augmented Purpose, Availability and accessibility, Strength in accessing network and

Core purpose are statistically significant at 5% level; rest factors (Disadvantages,

232

Limitation of accessing system and Value addition)are not significant. Among the

significant variables, Availability and accessibility has highest T value it showed

high level of linear relation with respect to level of satisfaction.

Table 5.11.3 Model Scores 2

Hypothesis – X

Ho: There is no linear relationship existing between Factors affecting INDEST Vs

Level of Importance.

Ha: There is linear relationship existing between Factors affecting INDEST Vs

Level of Importance.

Independent Variable Dependent

Variable R

R

Square

Adjusted

R Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

Basic Advantages,

Disadvantages, Augmented

Purpose, Availability and

accessibility, Limitation of

accessing, Strength in accessing

network, Expected Facilitation,

Core purpose, Value addition

Importance 0.535 0.286 0.269 0.611

The table 5.11.3 and 5.11.3.1 shows the impact of Factors affecting INDEST

usage on Importance. The correlation coefficient value (R) is 0. 535 for Model2,

which exhibits a very high amount of correlation between the independent

variable(Factors affects usage of INDEST) and dependent variable (Importance), with

the F-ratio being 16.22 and its associated significance level being small (P<0.01). The

R square value gives us the goodness of fit of the regression model. That is, the

amount of variability explained by the whole of the selected predictor variables in the

model for 28.6% (R2%=.100 * x100) of variation in the dependent variable

(Satisfaction).

233

Table 5.11.3.1ANOVA

ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

2

Regression 54.55 9 6.06

16.22 0.00 Residual 135.98 364 0.37

Total 190.52 373

5.11.4 Coefficients

This section deals with the (Coefficients) factors affecting INDEST E-

Resources usage on level of importance on faculty of top seven IITs.

Table 5.11.4 Coefficients

Coefficients

S/N Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

2 (Constant) 2.38 0.36 6.68 0.00

Basic Advantages 0.44 0.07 0.40 6.58 0.00

Disadvantages -0.06 0.04 -0.08 -1.36 0.17

Augmented Purpose 0.07 0.05 0.08 1.41 0.16

Availability and

accessibility 0.12 0.04 0.14 2.79 0.01

Limitation of accessing

system -0.03 0.03 -0.05 -0.97 0.33


network 0.09 0.05 0.10 1.85 0.07

Expected Facilitation 0.09 0.04 -0.13 2.59 0.01

Core purpose 0.21 0.05 0.19 3.94 0.00

Value addition 0.14 0.06 -0.13 2.35 0.02

Table 5.11.4 shows among the Independent variables Basic Advantages,

Availability and accessibility, Expected Facilitation, Core purpose and Value addition

are statistically significant at 5% level, rest factors Disadvantages, Augmented

Purpose, Limitation of accessing and Strength in accessing network are not

234

significant. Among the significant variables, F1 Basic Advantages has highest t

value it showed high level of linear relation with respect to level of Importance.

5.11.5 Summary

The correlation coefficient value (R) is 0.621 for Model1, which exhibits a

very high amount of correlation between the independent variable(Factors affects

usage of INDEST) and dependent variable (Satisfaction), with the F-value being

25.41 and its associated significance level being small (P<0.01). The R square value

gives us the goodness of fit of the regression model. That is, the amount of variability

explained by the whole of the selected predictor variables in the model for 38.6%

(R2%=.100 * x100) of variation in the dependent variable (Satisfaction) (Table 5.11.1)

and (Table 5.11.1.1).

Independent variables Basic Advantages, Augmented Purpose, Availability

and accessibility, Strength in accessing network and Core purpose are statistically

significant at 5% level; rest factors (Disadvantages, Limitation of accessing system

and Value addition) are not significant. Among the significant variables,

Availability and accessibility has highest T value it showed high level of linear

relation with respect to level of satisfaction (Table 5.11.2).

The impact of Factors affecting INDEST usage on Importance, the correlation

coefficient value (R) is 0. 535 for Model2, which exhibits a very high amount of

correlation between the independent variable(Factors affects usage of INDEST) and

dependent variable (Importance), with the F-ratio being 16.22 and its associated

significance level being small (P<0.01). The R square value gives us the goodness of

fit of the regression model. That is, the amount of variability explained by the whole

of the selected predictor variables in the model for 28.6% (R2%=.100 * x100) of

variation in the dependent variable (Satisfaction) (Table 5.11.3) and (Table 5.11.3.1).

Independent variables Basic Advantages, Availability and accessibility,

Expected Facilitation, Core purpose and Value addition are statistically significant at

5% level, rest factors Disadvantages, Augmented Purpose, Limitation of accessing

and Strength in accessing network are not significant. Among the significant

variables, F1 Basic Advantages has highest T value it showed high level of linear

relation with respect to level of Importance (Table 5.11.4)

235

SECTION 12

AWARENESS OF INDEST E-RESOURCES AMONG FACULTY OF TOP

SEVEN IITS

5.12.0 Introduction

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) level of awareness of INDEST E-

Resources among faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics like Name of

IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy/ computer qualification.

Chi-Square

Hypothesis – XI

Ho: There is no significant difference between level of awareness and different

demographics (Name of IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy).

Ha: There is significant difference between level of awareness and different

demographics (Name of IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy).

5.12.1 Awareness of INDEST E-Resources by Name of the IIT

Table 5.12.1 showed the cross tabulation between IITs and Awareness of

INDEST, Awareness is created by Library professional across IIT is higher compared

to other source of awareness. IIT Kharagpur is 78% which is highest in this category

and lowest is IIT Delhi which is 42%, however; in the category Colleagues, IIT Delhi

is 36% and lowest is IIT Roorkee with 4%. For awareness created by ‘Internet’ and

IIT, IIT Roorkee has the highest value of 36% and IIT Madras has the lowest value of

9%. For awareness created by Friends, IIT Madras has the highest value of 8% and

IIT Roorkee has 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to

prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 62.002 and sig value is .000

(< .05), hence difference are statistically significant.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates that Awareness of INDEST E-Resources by Name

of the IIT of the respondents and all IITs have significant association (Chi-Square=

62.002, df = 18 and Sig Value=0.00)

236

Table 5.12.1

Awareness of INDEST E-Resources by Name of the IIT

S/N Mode of Awareness Name of the IIT

Total IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR

1 Friends 2 (4) 7 (7) 7 (8) 2 (3) 1 (3) 5 (7) 0 (0) 24 (6)

2 Library

professional staff 36 (78) 50 (49) 56 (64) 24 (69) 15 (42) 45 (64) 22 (65) 248 (60)

3 Internet 6 (12) 11 (11) 8 (9) 4 (11) 7 (19) 17 (24) 11 (32) 64 (16)

4 Colleagues 2 (4) 34 (33) 16 (18) 6 (17) 13 (36) 3 (4) 1 (3) 75 (18)

Total 46

(100)

102

(100)

87

(100)

36

(100)

36

(100)

70

(100)

34

(100)

411

(100)

Pearson Chi-Square=62.002; df=18; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00

(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)

Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT

Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee

5.12.2 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Designation

The below table 5.12.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and

Awareness of INDEST, Awareness is created by Library professional across

Designation is higher compared to other source of awareness. Professor is 64% which

is highest in this category and lowest is Assistant Professor which is 55%, however; in

the category Colleagues, Professor is 22% and lowest is Assistant Professor with

15%. For awareness created by ‘Internet’, and Designation, Associate Professor has

the highest value of 21% and Professor has the lowest value of 10%. For awareness

created by Friends, Assistant Professor has the highest value of 12% and Associate

Professor has 1%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference in order to



Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates that Awareness of INDEST E-Resources by

designation of the respondents and all IITs have significant association (Chi-Square=

23.227, df = 6 and Sig Value=0.00)

237

Table 5.12.2 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Designation

S/N

Mode of Awareness

Designation

Total Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

1 Friends 6 (3) 1 (1) 17 (12) 24 (6)

2 Library professional staff 112 (64) 58 (61) 79 (55) 248 (60)

3 Internet 18 (10) 20 (21) 26 (18) 64 (16)

4 Colleagues 38 (22) 15 (17) 21 (15) 75 (18)

Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)



5.12.3 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Gender

Table 5.12.3 shows the cross tabulation between Gender and Awareness of

INDEST, Awareness is created by Library professional across Gender is higher

compared to other source of awareness. Female is 62% which is highest in this

category and lowest is Male which is 60%, however; in the category Colleagues,

Female is 19% and lowest is Male with 18%. For awareness created by ‘Internet’, and

Gender, Male has the highest value of 16% and Female has the lowest value of 11%.

Awareness created by Friends, Female has the highest value of 8% and Male has 5%.

The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi

square is employed, the chi square value is 1.567 and sig value is .67 (> .05), hence

difference is statistically not significant at 5% level of significance.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates that Awareness of INDEST E-Resources by gender

of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square= 1.567, df =

3 and Sig Value=0.67)

238

Table 5.12.3 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Gender

S/N Mode Of Awareness

Gender Total

Male Female

1 Friends 19 (5) 5 (8) 24 (6)

2 Library professional staff 209 (60) 39 (62) 248 (60)

3 Internet 57 (16) 7 (11) 64 (16)

4 Colleagues 63 (18) 12 (19) 75 (18)

Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)



5.12.4 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Age in Years

Table 5.12.4 shows the cross tabulation between Age and Awareness of

INDEST, Awareness is created by Library professional across Age is higher compared

to other source of awareness. 46-55 age group is 75% which is highest in this category

and lowest is 25-35 age group which is 51%, however; in the category Colleagues, 36-

45 years is 20% and lowest is >56 age group with 15%. For awareness created by

‘Internet’, and age group, 36-45 has the highest value of 22% and 46-55 has the

lowest value of 5%. Awareness created by Friends, 25-35 has the highest value of

13% and 46-55 has 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order

to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 33.608 and sig value is

.00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates that Awareness of INDEST E-Resources by Age of

the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square= 33.608, df = 9

and Sig Value=0.00)

Table 5.12.4 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Age in Years

S/N Mode Of Awareness

Age In Years Total

25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

1 Friends 11 (13) 7 (4) 0 (0) 6 (8) 24 (6)

2 Library professional staff 42 (51) 89 (54) 70 (75) 47 (65) 248 (60)

3 Internet 15 (18) 36 (22) 5 (5) 8 (11) 64 (16)

4 Colleagues 13 (17) 33 (20) 18 (19) 11 (15) 75 (18)

Total 81 (100) 164 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)



239

5.12.5 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Computer Literacy

Table 5.12.5 showed the cross tabulation between Computer Literacy and

Awareness of INDEST, Awareness is created by Library professional across

Computer Literacy is higher compared to other source of awareness. ‘Good’

Computer Literacy is 64% which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’

Computer Literacy which is 53%, however; in the category Colleagues, ‘Expert’

Computer Literacy is 25% and lowest is ‘Good’ Computer Literacy group with

14%. For awareness created by ‘Internet’, and Computer Literacy, ‘Good’ has the

highest value of 16% and ‘Average’ has the lowest value of 14%. Awareness created

by Friends, ‘Good’ has the highest value of 14% and ‘Average’ has 1%. The patterns

clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is

employed, the chi square value is 8.180 and sig value is .23 (> .05), hence difference

is statistically not significant.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates that Awareness of INDEST E-Resources by

computer literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-

Square= 8.180, df = 6 and Sig Value=0.23)

Table 5.12.5 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Computer Literacy

S/N Mode Of Awareness Computer Literacy

Total Expert Good Average

1 Friends 9 (7) 14 (5) 1 (3) 24 (6)

2 Library professional staff 65 (53) 166 (64) 17 (59) 248 (60)

3 Internet 18 (15) 42 (16) 4 (14) 64 (16)

4 Colleagues 30 (25) 37 (14) 8 (24) 75 (18)

Total 122 (100) 259 (100) 30 (100) 411 (100)



240

5.12.6 Summary

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) level of awareness of INDEST E-



Summary of section5.12 indicates that Awareness is created by Library professional

across IIT is higher compared to other source of awareness. IIT-Kharagpur is 78%

which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT Delhi which is 42%the chi

square value is 62.002 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically

significant (Table 5.12.1), Awareness is created by Library professional across

Designation is higher compared to other source of awareness. Professor is 64% which

is highest in this category and lowest is Assistant Professor which is 55%the chi


significant (Table 5.12.2), Awareness is created by Library professional across Gender

is higher compared to other source of awareness. Female is 62% which is highest in

this category and lowest is Male which is 60%the chi square value is 1.567 and sig

value is .67 (> .05), hence difference is statistically not significant at 5% level of

significance (Table 5.12.3), Awareness is created by Library professional across Age

is higher compared to other source of awareness. 46-55 age group is 75% which is

highest in this category and lowest is 25-35 age group which is 51%the chi

square value is 33.608 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically

significant(Table 5.12.4), Awareness is created by Library professional across

Computer Literacy is higher compared to other source of awareness. ‘Good’

Computer Literacy is 64% which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’

Computer Literacy which is 53%the chi square value is 8.180 and sig value is .23 (>

.05), hence difference is statistically not significant(Table 5.12.5).

241

SECTION 13

YEARS OF USING OF INDEST E-RESOURCES AMONG FACULTY OF TOP

SEVEN IITs

5.13.0 Introduction

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) years of using of INDEST E-


IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy.

Hypothesis – XII

Ho: There is no significant difference between years of using INDEST E-Resources

by Name of IITs, Designation, Gender, Age and Computer literacy)

Ha: There is significant difference between years of using INDEST E-Resources by

Name of IITs, Designation, Gender, Age and Computer literacy)

5.13.1 Years of Using by Name of the IIT

Table 5.13.1 shows the cross tabulation between IIT’s and Years of

Using, More than 4 years of using across IIT is higher compared to other years of

using. IIT-Kharagpur is 80% which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT

Bombay which is 47%, however; in the category 1-4 years, IIT Bombay is 45% and

lowest is IIT Kanpur with 3%. For Less than 1 year of using, and IIT, IIT Kharagpur

has the highest value of 27% and IIT Bombay and IIT Guwahati have the lowest value

of 9%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi

square is employed, the chi square value is 68.725 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence

difference are statistically significant.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Years of Using INDEST E-Resources by IIT’s of

the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square= 68.725, df =

12 and Sig Value = 0.00)

242

Table 5.13.1 Years of Using by Name of the IIT

S/N

Years of

using

INDEST

Name of the IIT


1 Less than 1 yr 12 (27) 8 (9) 13 (15) 6 (17) 9 (26) 6 (9) 5 (15) 59 (15)

2 1-4 years 3 (7) 42 (45) 8 (9) 1 (3) 3 (9) 16 (23) 3 (9) 77 (19)

3 More than 4

years 31 (67) 52 (47) 65 (76) 29 (80) 24 (65) 48 (68) 26 (76) 275 (66)

Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 86 (100) 36 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)




243

5.13.2 Years of Using by Designation

Table 5.13.2 shows the cross tabulation between Designation and Years of

using, More than 4 years of using across Designation is higher compared to other

years of using. Professor is 79% which is highest in this category and lowest is

Assistant Professor which is 54%, however; in the category 1-4 years, Associate

Professor is 34% and lowest is Professor with 12%. For ‘Less than 1 year’, and

Designation, Assistant Professor has the highest value of 28% and Associate Professor

has the lowest value of 6%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in

order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 46.367 and sig

value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically significant.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Years of Using INDEST E-Resources by

designation of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=

46.367, df = 4 and Sig Value = 0.00)

Table 5.13.2 Years of Using by Designation

S/N Years of using INDEST

Designation

Total Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

1 Less than 1 yr 15 (9) 6 (6) 39 (28) 60 (15)

2 1-4 years 20 (12) 32 (34) 25 (18) 77 (19)

3 More than 4 years 139 (79) 56 (60) 79 (54) 274 (66)

Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)



5.13.3 Years of Using by Gender

Table 5.13.3 shows the cross tabulation between Gender and Years of

using, More than 4 years of using across Designation is higher compared to other

years of using. Male is 67% which is highest in this category and lowest is Feale

which is 58%, however; in the category 1-4 years, Female is 20% and lowest is Male

with 19%. For Less than 1 year of using and Gender, Female has the highest value of

22% and Male has the lowest value of 14%. The patterns clearly indicates a

significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi

244

square value is 3.176 and sig value is .20 (> .05), hence difference is statistically not


Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Years of Using INDEST E-Resources by gender of


and Sig Value = 0.20)

Table 5.13.3 Years of Using by Gender

S/N Years of using INDEST Gender

Total Male Female

1 Less than 1 yr 46 (14) 14 (22) 60 (15)

2 1-4 years 64 (19) 13 (20) 77 (19)

3 More than 4 years 238 (67) 36 (58) 274 (66)

Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)



5.13.4 Years of Using by Computer Literacy

Table 5.13.4 shows the cross tabulation between Computer Literacy and Years

of using, More than 4 years of using across Computer Literacy is higher compared to

other years of using. ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 70% which is highest in this

category and lowest is ‘Expert’ and ‘Good’ Computer Literacy which is 64% each,

however; in the category 1-4 years, ‘Good’ Computer Literacy is 21% and lowest is

‘Average’ Computer Literacy group with 11%. For Less than 1 year of using, and

Computer Literacy, ‘Average’ has the highest value of 25% and ‘Expert’ has the

lowest value of 12%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to


(> .05), hence difference is statistically not significant.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Years of Using INDEST E-Resources by Computer

Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=

4.704a, df = 4 and Sig Value = 0.32)

245

Table 5.13.4 Years of Using by Computer Literacy

S/N Years of using INDEST Computer Literacy


1 Less than 1 yr 14 (12) 39 (15) 7 (25) 60 (15)

2 1-4 years 20 (17) 54 (21) 3 (11) 77 (19)

3 More than 4 years 86 (70) 170 (64) 18 (64) 274 (66)

Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)



5.13.5 Years of Using by Age in Years

Table 5.13.5 shows the cross tabulation between Age and Years of

using, More than 4 years across Age is higher compared to other years of using. 46-55

age group is 84% which is highest in this category and lowest is 25-35 age group

which is 46%, however; in the category 1-4 years, 36-45 years is 27% and lowest is

>56 age group with 9%. For less than 1 year and age group, 25-35 years has the

highest value of 34% and 46-55 has the lowest value of 8%. The patterns clearly

indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is

employed, the chi square value is 48.890 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference

is statistically significant.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Years of Using INDEST E-Resources by Age of



Table 5.13.5 Years of Using by Age in Years

S/N Years of using

INDEST

Age In Years Total

25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

1 Less than 1 yr 27 (34) 14 (9) 7 (8) 12 (17) 60 (15)

2 1-4 years 16 (20) 43 (27) 8 (9) 9 (13) 76 (19)

3 More than 4 years 38 (46) 108 (64) 78 (84) 51 (70) 275 (66)

Total 81 (100) 165(100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)



246

5.13.6 Summary

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) years of using of INDEST E-



Summary of section5.13indicates that between IIT’s and Years of Using, More than 4

years of using across IIT is higher compared to other years of using. IIT-Kharagpur is

80% which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT Bombay which is 47%the chi


significant (Table 5.13.1), between Designation and Years of using, More than 4 years

of using across Designation is higher compared to other years of using. Professor is

79% which is highest in this category and lowest is Assistant Professor which is

54%the chi square value is 46.367 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are

statistically significant(Table 5.13.2), between Gender and Years of using, More than

4 years of using across Designation is higher compared to other years of using. Male

is 67% which is highest in this category and lowest is Feale which is 58%the chi


significant at 5% level of significance (Table 5.13.3), between Computer Literacy and

Years of using, More than 4 years of using across Computer Literacy is higher

compared to other years of using. ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 70% which is highest

in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’ and ‘Good’ Computer Literacy which is 64%

each the chi square value is 4.704 and sig value is .32 (> .05), hence difference is

statistically not significant (Table 5.13.4), between Age and Years of using, More than

4 years across Age is higher compared to other years of using. 46-55 age groups are

84% which is highest in this category and lowest is 25-35 age groups which is

46%the chi square value is 48.890 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is

statistically significant(Table 5.13.5).

247

SECTION 14

FORMAT USED TO DOWNLOAD INDEST E-RESOURCES AMONG

FACULTY OF TOP SEVEN IITs

5.14.0 Introduction

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) format used to download

INDEST E-Resources among faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics

like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy/ computer

qualification.

Hypothesis – XIII

Ho: There is no significant difference between Format use (PDF, HTML) and

different demographics (Name of IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer

literacy)

Ha: There is significant difference between Format use (PDF, HTML) and different

demographics (Name of IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy)

5.14.1 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Name of the IIT

Table 5.14.1 shows the cross tabulation between IIT’s and Format of INDEST

E-Resources used, PDF format across IIT is higher compared to other formats. IIT-

Roorkee is 97% which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT Delhi which is

66%, however; in the category HTML/SGML, IIT Delhi is 34% and lowest is IIT

Roorkee with 3%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to



Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Format use to download of INDEST E-Resources

by IIT’s of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=

36.736, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.00)

248

Table 5.14.1 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Name of the IIT

S/

N

Format of

INDEST

E-

Resources

used

Name of the IIT

Total IITKG

P IITB

IIT

M IITK IITD IITG IITR

1 PDF 42 (91) 96

(94)

80

(92)

28

(77)

24

(66)

50

(71)

33

(97)

353

(85)

2 HTML/SG

ML 4 (9) 6 (6) 7 (8) 8 (23)

12

(34)

20

(29) 1 (3) 58 (15)

Total 46(100) 102(10

0)

87(1

00)

36(10

0)

36(10

0)

70(10

0)

34(10

0)

411

(100)



Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT

Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee

5.14.2 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Designation

Table 5.14.2 shows the cross tabulation between Designation and Format of

INDEST E-Resources used PDF across Designation is higher compared to

HTML/SGML. Assistant Professor is 91% which is highest in this category and

lowest is Associate Professor which is 78%, however; in the category HTML/SGML,

Associate Professor is 22% and lowest is Assistant Professor with 9%. The patterns



are statistically significant.


by Designation of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-

Square= 8.603, df = 2 and Sig Value = 0.01)

249

Table 5.14.2 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Designation

S/N Format of INDEST

E- Resources used

Designation

Total Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

1 PDF 148 (84) 74 (78) 131 (91) 353 (85)

2 HTML/SGML 26 (16) 20 (22) 12 (9) 58 (15)

Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)



5.14.3 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Gender

Table 5.14.3 shows the cross tabulation between Gender and Format of

INDEST E-Resources used, PDF format across Designation is higher compared to

other formats. Male is 88% which is highest in this category and lowest is Female

which is 68%, however; in the category HTML/SGML, Female is 32% and lowest is

Male with 12%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to


(< .05), hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of significance.


by Gender of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=

17.178, df = 1 and Sig Value = 0.00)

Table 15.14.3 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Gender

S/N Format of INDEST E-

Resources used

Gender Total

Male Female

1 PDF 309 (88) 43 (68) 352 (85)

2 HTML/SGML 39 (12) 20 (32) 59 (15)

Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)



250

5.14.4 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Age in Years

Table 5.14.4 shows the cross tabulation between Age and Format of INDEST

E-Resources used; PDF is higher compared to HTML/SGML. >56 age group is 99%

which is highest in this category and lowest is 46-55 age group which is 66%,

however; in the category HTML/SGML, 46-55 years is 34% and lowest is >56 age

group with 1%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to


(< .05), hence difference is statistically significant.


by Age of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=

43.445, df = 3 and Sig Value = 0.00)

Table 5.14.4 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Age in Years

S/N

Format of

INDEST E-

Resources used

Age In Years

Total 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

1 PDF 76 (94) 144 (87) 61 (66) 71 (99) 352 (85)

2 HTML/SGML 5 (6) 21 (13) 32 (34) 1 (1) 59 (15)

Total 81 (100) 165 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)



5.14.5 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Computer Literacy

Table 5.14.5 shows the cross tabulation between Computer Literacy and

Format of INDEST E-Resources used. PDF across Computer Literacy is higher

compared to HTML/SGML. ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 100% which is highest

in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’ and ‘Good’ Computer Literacy which is 16%

each however; in the category HTML/SGML, ‘Expert’ and ‘Good’ Computer Literacy

is 16% and lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy group with 0%. The patterns




251


by Computer Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association

(Chi-Square= 5.215, df = 2 and Sig Value = 0.07)

Table 5.14.5 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Computer Literacy

S/N Format of INDEST

E- Resources used

Computer Literacy Total

Expert Good Average

1 PDF 102 (84) 222 (84) 28 (100) 352 (85)

2 HTML/SGML 18 (16) 41 (16) 0 (0) 59 (15)

Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)



5.14.6 Summary

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) format used to download

INDEST E-Resources among faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics


qualification. Summary of section 5.14 indicates that between IIT’s and Format of

INDEST E-Resources used, PDF format across IIT is higher compared to other

formats. IIT-Roorkee is 97% which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT Delhi

which is 66%the chi square value is 36.736 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence

difference are statistically significant (Table 5.14.1), between Designation and Format

of INDEST E-Resources used PDF across Designation is higher compared to

HTML/SGML. Assistant Professor is 91% which is highest in this category and

lowest is Associate Professor which is 78%the chi square value is 8.603 and sig value

is .01 (< .05), hence difference are statistically significant(Table 5.14.2), between

Gender and Format of INDEST E-Resources used, PDF format across Designation is

higher compared to other formats. Male is 88% which is highest in this category and

lowest is Female which is 68%the chi square value is 17.178 and sig value is .00 (<

.05), hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of significance(Table

5.14.3), between Age and Format of INDEST E-Resources used; PDF is higher

compared to HTML/SGML. >56 age group is 99% which is highest in this category

and lowest is 46-55 age group which is 66%the chi square value is 43.445 and sig

value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant(Table 5.14.4), between

252

Computer Literacy and Format of INDEST E-Resources used. PDF across Computer

Literacy is higher compared to HTML/SGML. ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 100%

which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’ and ‘Good’ Computer Literacy

which is 16% each the chi square value is 5.215 and sig value is .07 (> .05), hence

difference is statistically not significant(Table 5.14.5).

253

SECTION 15

COMPONENTS OF INDEST E-RESOURCES USED BY FACULTY OF TOP

SEVEN IITs

5.15.0 Introduction

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) components of INDEST E-

Resources used by faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics like Name of


Hypothesis – XIV

Ho: There is no significant difference between Components (Table of contents,

abstract, full text, article references) and different demographics (Name of

IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy)

Ha: There is significant difference between Components (Table of contents,

abstract, full text, article references) and different demographics (Name of

IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy)

5.15.1 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Name of the IIT

Table 5.15.1 showed the cross tabulation IIT’s and Components of INDEST E-

Resources, Full Text across IIT is higher compared to other formats. IIT-Delhi is 97%

which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT Kharagpur which is 67%,

however; in the category Abstract, IIT Kharagpur is 29% and lowest is IIT Delhi with

3%. For ‘Table of Contents’, and IIT, IIT Kharagpur has the highest value of 4% and

IIT Kanpur, IIT Delhi and IIT Roorkee has the lowest value of 0%. For Article

References, IIT Guwahati has the highest value of 12% and IIT Roorkee, IIT Delhi,

IIT Madras, IIT Bombay and IIT Kharagpur has 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a



significant.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Components of INDEST E-Resources by IIT’s of

the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square= 55.217, df =

18 and Sig Value = 0.00)

254

Table 5.15.1 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Name of the IIT

S/N Components of INDEST

E-Resources

Name of the IIT

Total


1 Table of contents 2 (4) 2 (2) 2 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (3) 0 (0) 8 (2)

2 Abstract 13 (29) 14 (15) 9 (10) 2 (6) 1 (3) 8 (12) 4 (12) 51 (13)

3 Full Text 31 (67) 86 (83) 76 (87) 33 (92) 35 (97) 52 (74) 30 (88) 343 (83)

4 Article References 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 8 (12) 0 (0) 9 (2)

Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 87 (100) 36 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)




255

5.15.2 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Designation

Table 5.15.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and

Components of INDEST E-Resources, ‘Full Text’ across Designation is higher

compared to other components. Assistant Professor is 88% which is highest in this

category and lowest is Associate Professor which is 78%, however; in the category

Abstract, Associate Professor is 19% and lowest is Assistant Professor with 10%. For

Table of contents’, and Designation, Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant

Professor have the value of 2%. For Article References, Professor has the highest

value of 5% and Assistant Professor has 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a



significant.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Components of INDEST E-Resources by

Designation of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=

13.203a, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.04)

Table 5.15.2 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Designation

S/N Components of

INDEST E-Resources

Designation

Total Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

1 Table of contents 3 (2) 2 (2) 3 (2) 8 (2)

2 Abstract 20 (12) 17 (19) 14 (10) 52 (13)

3 Full Text 143 (81) 74 (78) 126 (88) 342 (83)

4 Article References 8 (5) 1 (1) 0(0) 9 (2)

Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)

Pearson Chi-Square=13.203a; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.04


5.15.3 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Gender

Table 5.15.3 showed the cross tabulation between Gender and Components of

INDEST E-Resources, Full Text across Designation is higher compared to other

components. Male is 88% which is highest in this category and lowest is female with

56%, however; in the category Abstract, Female is 30% and lowest is Male with

10%. For Table of contents’, and Gender, Female has the highest value of 3% and

Male has the lowest value of 2%. For Article References, Female has the highest value

256

of 11% and Male has 1%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in


value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of

significance.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Components of INDEST E-Resources by Gender of



Table 5.15.3 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Gender

S/N Components of INDEST E-

Resources

Gender Total

Male Female

1 Table of contents 6 (2) 2 (3) 8 (2)

2 Abstract 33 (10) 19 (30) 52 (13)

3 Full Text 307 (88) 35 (56) 342 (83)

4 Article References 2 (1) 7 (11) 9 (2)

Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)



5.15.4 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Age in years

Table 5.15.4 shows the cross tabulation between Age and Components of

INDEST E-Resources, Full Text across Age is higher compared to other

components. 25-35 age group is 88% which is highest in this category and lowest is

36-45. 46-55 and >56 age group which is 82%, however; in the category Abstract, 36-

45 years is 15% and lowest is 25-35 years and 46-55 age group with 10%. For Table

of contents, and age group, >56 has the highest value of 6% and 46-55 has the lowest

value of 0%. For Article References, 46-55 has the highest value of 9% and 25-35

years and >56 years has 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in


value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Components of INDEST E-Resources by Age of



257

Table 5.15.4 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Age in years

S/N

Components of

INDEST E-

Resources

Age In Years

Total 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

1 Table of contents 1 (1) 3 (2) 0 (0) 4 (6) 8 (2)

2 Abstract 8 (10) 24 (15) 9 (10) 9 (13) 50 (13)

3 Full Text 72 (88) 137 (82) 76 (82) 59 (82) 344 (83)

4 Article References 0 (0) 1 (1) 8 (9) 0 (0) 9 (2)

Total 81 (100) 165 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)



5.15.5 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Computer Literacy


Components of INDEST E-Resources, Full Text across Computer Literacy is higher

compared to other components. ‘Average’ and ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 89%

which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Good’ Computer Literacy which is

79%, however; in the category Abstract, ‘Good’ Computer Literacy is 15% and lowest

is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy group with 4%. For Table of Contents’, and

Computer Literacy, ‘Average’ has the highest value of 7% and ‘Expert’ has the lowest

value of 1%. For Article References, ‘Good’ has the highest value of 4%, ‘Average’

and ‘Expert’ has 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to


(< .05), hence difference is statistically significant.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Components of INDEST E-Resources by Computer

Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=

13.933, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.03)

Table 5.15.5 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Computer Literacy

S/N

Components of

INDEST E-

Resources

Computer Literacy


1 Table of contents 1 (1) 5 (2) 2 (7) 8 (2)

2 Abstract 12 (10) 39 (15) 1 (4) 52 (13)

3 Full Text 107 (89) 210 (79) 25 (89) 342 (83)

4 Article References 0 (0) 9 (4) 0 (0) 9 (2)

Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)

Pearson Chi-Square=13.933; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.03 (Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)

258

5.15.6 Summary

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) components of INDEST E-

Resources used by faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics like Name of


Summary of section5.15indicates that between IIT’s and Components of INDEST E-

Resources, Full Text across IIT is higher compared to other formats. IIT-Delhi is 97%

which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT Kharagpur which is 67%the chi


significant (Table 5.15.1), between Designation and Components of INDEST E-

Resources, ‘Full Text’ across Designation is higher compared to other

components. Assistant Professor is 88% which is highest in this category and lowest is

Associate Professor which is 78%the chi square value is 13.203 and sig value is .04 (<

.05), hence difference are statistically significant(Table 5.15.2), between Gender and

Components of INDEST E-Resources, Full Text across Designation is higher

compared to other components. Male is 88% which is highest in this category and

lowest is female with 56%the chi square value is 50.025 and sig value is .00 (< .05),

hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of significance(Table 5.15.3),

between Age and Components of INDEST E-Resources, Full Text across Age is

higher compared to other components. 25-35 age group is 88% which is highest

the chi square value is 30.867 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is

statistically significant(Table 5.15.4), between Computer Literacy and Components of

INDEST E-Resources, Full Text across Computer Literacy is higher compared to

other components. ‘Average’ and ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 89% which is highest

in this category and lowest is ‘Good’ Computer Literacy which is 79%the chi


significant(Table 5.15.5).

259

SECTION 16

FEATURES USED TO SEARCHINDEST E-RESOURCES USED BY


5.16.0 Introduction

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) features used to search INDEST

E-Resources used by faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics like Name

of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy.

Hypothesis – XV

Ho: There is no significant difference between Features use in searching INDEST E-

Resources (Author, Title, Journal Name, and Subject) and different


Ha: There is significant difference between Features use in searching INDEST E-

Resources (Author, Title, Journal Name and Subject) and different


5.16.1 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by Name of

the IIT

Table 5.16.1 showed the cross tabulation between IIT’s and Main feature you

use when searching INDEST E-Resources, Author across IIT is higher compared to

other features. IIT-Roorkee is 59% which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT

Madras which is 40%, however; in the category Journal Name, IIT Kharagpur and IIT

Madras is 47% and lowest is IIT Guwahati with 7%. For ‘Title’, and IIT, IIT Kanpur

has the highest value of 33% and IIT Roorkee has the lowest value of 0%. For ISSN,

IIT Guwahati has the highest value of 24% and IIT Kharagpur has 2%. The patterns


employed, the chi square value is 85.393 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence


Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Features used to search INDEST E-Resources by

IIT’s of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=

85.393, df = 18 and Sig Value = 0.00)

260

Table 5.16.1 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by Name of the IIT

S/N

Feature used

to search

INDEST

Name of the IIT


1 Author 22 (49) 48 (51) 34 (40) 15 (42) 16 (46) 32 (46) 20 (59) 187 (47)

2 Title 1 (2) 6 (6) 8 (9) 12 (33) 4 (11) 16 (23) 0 (0) 47 (12)

3 Journal name 22 (47) 33 (27) 41 (47) 3 (8) 14 (37) 5 (7) 11 (32) 129 (30)

4 ISSN 1 (2) 15 (16) 4 (5) 6 (17) 2 (6) 17 (24) 3 (9) 48 (12)

Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 87 (100) 3 6 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)




261

5.16.2 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by

Designation

Table 5.16.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and Main

feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources, Author across Designation is

higher compared to other features used. Assistant Professor is 60% which is highest in

this category and lowest is Professor which is 34%, however; in the category Journal

Name, Professor is 36% and lowest is Assistant Professor with 23%. For Title and

Designation, Associate Professor has the highest value of 18% and Assistant Professor

has the lowest value of 9%. For ISSN, Professor has the highest value of 18% and

Associate Professor has 6%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference in


value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically significant.


designation of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=

29.102, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.00)

Table 5.16.2 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by

Designation

S/N Feature used to

search INDEST

Designation

Total Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

1 Author 56 (34) 46 (49) 86 (60) 188 (46)

2 Title 19 (12) 17 (18) 12 (9) 48 (12)

3 Journal name 69 (36) 25 (27) 33 (23) 127 (30)

4 ISSN 30 (18) 6 (6) 12 (9) 48 (12)

Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)



5.16.3 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by Gender

Table 5.16.3 shows the cross tabulation between Gender and Main feature you

use when searching INDEST E-Resources, Author across Designation is higher

compared to other features used. Male is 47% which is highest in this category and

262

lowest is Female which is 44%, however; in the category Journal Name, Male is 31%

and lowest is Female with 21%. For Title and Gender, Male has the highest value of

12% and Female has the lowest value of 11%. For ISSN, Female has the highest value

of 24% and Male has 10%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in


value is .02 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of

significance.


gender of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=

10.243, df = 3 and Sig Value = 0.02)


Gender

S/N Feature used to search

INDEST

Gender Total

Male Female

1 Author 158 (47) 28 (44) 186 (47)

2 Title 40(12) 7 (11) 47 (12)

3 Journal name 116 (31) 13 (21) 129 (30)

4 ISSN 34 (10) 15 (24) 49 (12)

Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)



5.16.4 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by Age in

Years

Table 5.16.4 showed the cross tabulation between Age and Main feature you

use when searching INDEST E-Resources, author across Age is higher compared to

other features used. 25-35 age group is 60% which is highest in this category and

lowest is >56 age group which is 28%, however; in the category Journal Name, >56

years is 42% and lowest is 366-45 age group with 22%. For Title and age group, 36-

45 has the highest value of 15% and 25-35 has the lowest value of 6%. For ISSN, >56

has the highest value of 23% and 36-45 has 7%. The patterns clearly indicates a


263


significant.


Age of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square= 39.495,

df = 9 and Sig Value = 0.00)

Table 5.16.4 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by Age

in Years

S/N Feature used to

search INDEST

Age In Years Total

25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

1 Author 50 (60) 95 (55) 31 (34) 20 (28) 196 (47)

2 Title 5 (7) 24 (15) 13 (14) 5 (7) 47 (12)

3 Journal name 18 (23) 35 (23) 35 (37) 31 (42) 119 (30)

4 ISSN 8 (10) 11 (7) 14 (15) 16 (23) 49 (12)

Total 81 (100) 165 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)



5.16.5 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by Computer

Literacy

Table 5.18.5 shows the cross tabulation between Computer Literacy and Main

feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources, Author across Computer

Literacy is higher compared to other features. ‘Good’ Computer Literacy is 48%

which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy which is

39%, however; in the category Journal Name, ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 37% and

lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy group with 0%. For Title and Computer

Literacy, ‘Average’ has the highest value of 32% and ‘Expert’ has the lowest value of

7%. For ISSN, ‘Average’ has the highest value of 29% and ‘Expert’ and ‘Good’ has

11% each. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove

this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 30.047 and sig value is .00 (< .05),

hence difference is statistically significant.

264


Computer Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-



Computer Literacy

S/N Feature used to search

INDEST


Expert Good Average

1 Author 53 (45) 128 (48) 11 (39) 193 (47)

2 Title 8 (7) 29 (11) 9 (32) 46 (12)

3 Journal name 43 (37) 79(30) 0 (0) 124 (30)

4 ISSN 13 (11) 27 (11) 8 (29) 48 (12)

Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)



5.16.6 Summary

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) features used to search INDEST

E-Resources used by faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics like Name

of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy/ computer qualification.

Summary of section5.16 indicates that between IIT’s and Main feature you use when

searching INDEST E-Resources, Author across IIT is higher compared to other

features. IIT Roorkee is 59% which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT

Madras which is 40% the chi square value is 85.393 and sig value is .000 (< .05),

hence difference are statistically significant (Table 5.16.1), between Designation and

Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources, Author across

Designation is higher compared to other features used. Assistant Professor is 60%

which is highest in this category and lowest is Professor which is 34%the chi


significant (Table 5.16.2), between Gender and Main feature you use when searching

INDEST E-Resources, Author across Designation is higher compared to other features

used. Male is 47% which is highest in this category and lowest is Female which is


265

statistically significant at 5% level of significance (Table 5.16.3), between Age and

Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources, author across Age is

higher compared to other features used. 25-35 age group is 60% which is highest in

this category and lowest is >56 age group which is 28%the chi square value is 39.495

and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant (Table 5.16.4),

between Computer Literacy and Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-

Resources, Author across Computer Literacy is higher compared to other

features. ‘Good’ Computer Literacy is 48% which is highest in this category and

lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy which is 39%the chi square value is 30.047

and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant (Table 5.16.5).

266

SECTION 17

NUMBER OF ARTICLES FROM INDEST E-RESOURCES READ IN A

WEEK BY FACULTY OF TOP SEVEN IITs

5.17.0 Introduction

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) No. of articles from INDEST E-

Resources read in a week by faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics

like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy.

Hypothesis – XVI

Ho: There is no significant difference between usage of INDEST (number of article)

and different demographics (Name of the IITs, Designation, Gender, Age,

Computer literacy)

Ha: There is significant difference between usage of INDEST (number of article)

and different demographics (Name of the IITs, Designation, Gender, Age,

Computer literacy)

5.17.1 Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a week by

Name of the IIT

Table 5.17.1 showed the cross tabulation between IIT’s and Number of articles

from INDEST E-Resources read in a week, ‘Less than 5’ across IIT is higher

compared to other number of articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a

week. IIT-Kanpur is 69% which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT

Kharagpur which is 16%, however; in the category ‘5-10’, IIT Kharagpur is 66% and

lowest is IIT Delhi with 9%. For 11-15 books and IIT, IIT Delhi has the highest value

of 43% and IIT Kanpur has the lowest value of 9%. For more than 15 books, IIT

Guwahati has the highest value of 15% and IIT Madras and Bombay has 1% each.

The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi

square is employed, the chi square value is 82.268 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence


Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do

you read in a week by IIT’s of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant

association (Chi-Square= 82.268, df = 18 and Sig Value = 0.00)

267

Table 5.17.1 Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a week by Name of the IIT

S/N No of INDEST articles read in a

week

Name of the IIT

Total


1 Less than 5 7 (16) 44 (42) 32 (37) 25 (69) 13 (37) 31(43) 18 (52) 170 (41)

2 5 to 10 31 (66) 40 (39) 32 (37) 7 (20) 3 (9) 19 (28) 7 (21) 139 (34)

3 11 to 15 6 (14) 17 (18) 22 (25) 3 (9) 16 (43) 8 (12) 7 (21) 79 (20)

4 More than 15 2 (5) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (3) 4 (11) 12 (17) 2 (6) 23 (6)

Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 87 (100) 36 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)




IIT Roorkee

268


Designation

Table 5.17.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and Number of

articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a week, Less than 5 across Designation is

higher compared to other number of articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a

week. Associate Professor is 47% which is highest in this category and lowest is

Professor which is 36%, however; in the category 5-10 articles, Associate Professor is

37% and lowest is Professor with 30%. For 11-15 articles and Designation, Professor

has the highest value of 25% and Associate Professor has the lowest value of 13%.

For More than 15 articles, Professor has the highest value of 8% and Associate

Professor has 3%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to


(> .05), hence difference are statistically not significant.


you read in a week by Designation of the respondents and all IITs have significant


Table 5.17.2 Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a

week by Designation

S/N No of INDEST articles

read in a week

Designation

Total Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

1 Less than 5 6 (36) 45 (47) 60 (42) 168 (41)

2 5 to 10 52 (30) 34 (37) 52 (36) 138 (34)

3 11 to 15 45 (25) 12 (13) 25 (18) 82 (20)

4 More than 15 14 (8) 3 (3) 6 (4) 23 (6)

Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)



269


Gender

Table 5.17.3 showed the cross tabulation between Gender and Number of

articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a week, Less than 5 across Gender is

higher compared to other Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a

week. Female is 43% which is highest in this category and lowest is Male which is

40%, however; in the category 5-10, Male is 35% and lowest is Female with 27%. For

11-15 articles’ and Gender, Male has the highest value of 21% and Female has the

lowest value of 10%. For More than 15 articles, Female has the highest value of 21%

and Male has 3%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to


(< .05), hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of significance.


you read in a week by Gender of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant



week by Gender


read in a week

Gender Total

Male Female

1 Less than 5 141 (40) 27 (43) 168 (41)

2 5 to 10 124 (35) 17 (27) 141 (34)

3 11 to 15 72 (21) 6 (10) 78 (20)

4 More than 15 11 (3) 13 (21) 24 (6)

Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)




Age in years

Table 5.17.4 showed the cross tabulation between Age and Number of articles

from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a week, Less than 5 articles read across

Age is higher compared to other number of articles read. 36-45 age group is 45%

270

which is highest in this category and lowest is 46-55 age group which is 33%,

however; in the category 5-10 articles, 2-35,36-45 and 46-55 years is 35% and lowest

is >56 age group with 28%. For 11-15 articles and age group, >56 has the highest

value of 28% and 36-45 has the lowest value of 15%. For more than 15 articles, 46-55

has the highest value of 10% and >56 years has 3%. The patterns clearly indicates a



significant.


you read in a week by Age of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant



week by Age in years

S/N No of INDEST

articles read in a week

Age In Years Total

25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

1 Less than 5 35 (42) 75 (45) 30 (33) 30 (41) 170 (41)

2 5 to 10 28 (35) 54 (35) 33 (35) 20 (28) 140 (33)

3 11 to 15 15 (19) 23 (15) 21 (23) 20 (28) 79 (20)

4 More than 15 3 (4) 8 (5) 9 (10) 2 (3) 22 (6)

Total 81 (100) 165 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)




Computer Literacy


Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a week, Less than 5

articles across Computer Literacy is higher compared to other number of articles

read. ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 57% which is highest in this category and

lowest is ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy which is 29%, however; in the category 5-10

articles, ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 41% and lowest is ‘Average’ Computer

Literacy group with 21%. For 11-15 articles and Computer Literacy, ‘Expert’ has the

271

highest value of 25% and ‘Average’ has the lowest value of 11%. For More than 15

articles, ‘Average’ has the highest value of 11% and ‘Expert’ has 4%. The patterns





you read in a week by Computer Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have

significant association (Chi-Square= 15.122, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.02)


week by Computer Literacy


read in a week


Expert Good Average

1 Less than 5 35 (29) 118 (45) 16 (57) 169 (41)

2 5 to 10 50 (41) 84 (32) 6 (21) 140 (34)

3 11 to 15 30 (25) 46 (18) 3 (11) 79 (20)

4 More than 15 5 (4) 15 (6) 3 (11) 23 (6)

Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411(100)



5.17.6 Summary

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) No. of articles from INDEST E-

Resources read in a week by faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics

like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy. Summary of

section5.17indicates that between IIT’s and Number of articles from INDEST E-

Resources read in a week, ‘Less than 5’ across IIT is higher compared to other number

of articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a week. IIT-Kanpur is 69% which is

highest in this category and lowest is IIT Kharagpur which is 16%the chi square value

is 82.268 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically significant

(Table 5.17.1), between Designation and Number of articles from INDEST E-

Resources read in a week, Less than 5 across Designation is higher compared to other

number of articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a week. Associate Professor is

272

47% which is highest in this category and lowest is Professor which is 36%the chi

square value is 12.210 and sig value is .06 (> .05), hence difference are statistically

not significant (Table 5.17.2), between Gender and Number of articles from INDEST

E-Resources read in a week, Less than 5 across Gender is higher compared to other

Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a week. Female is 43% which

is highest in this category and lowest is Male which is 40%, however; in the category

5-10, Male is 35% and lowest is Female with 27%the chi square value is 31.562 and

sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of

significance (Table 5.17.3), between Age and Number of articles from INDEST E-

Resources do you read in a week, Less than 5 articles read across Age is higher

compared to other number of articles read. 36-45 age group is 45% which is highest in

this category and lowest is 46-55 age group which is 33%the chi square value is

12.413 and sig value is .19 (> .05), hence difference is statistically not significant

(Table 5.17.4), between Computer Literacy and Number of articles from INDEST E-

Resources do you read in a week, Less than 5 articles across Computer Literacy is

higher compared to other number of articles read. ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is

57% which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy which

is 29%the chi square value is 15.122 and sig value is .02 (< .05), hence difference is

statistically significant (Table 5.17.5).

273

SECTION 18

AVG. TIME SPENT IN A WEEK ON READING ARTICLES FROM INDEST

E-RESOURCES BY FACULTY OF TOP SEVEN IITs

5.18.0 Introduction

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) avg. time spent in a week on

reading articles from INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs with different

demographics like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy.

Hypothesis – XVII

Ho: There is no significant difference between usage of INDEST (average time) and

different demographics (Name of the IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer

literacy)

Ha: There is significant difference between usage of INDEST (average time) and

different demographics (Name of the IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer

literacy)

5.18.1 Avg. time do you spend in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-

Resources by Name of the IIT

Table 5.18.1 showed the cross tabulation between IIT’s and Average time

spent in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, More than 4 hours is

higher compared to time spent, IIT Kharagpur is 73% and lowest is IIT Kanpur with

8% however; in the category 1-2 hours and IIT, IIT Madras and Bombay has the

highest value of 45% each and IIT Roorkee has the lowest value of 9%. For 2-4 hours,

IIT Bombay has the highest value of 36% and IIT Madras, Delhi and Roorkee has 9%

each. For less than 1 hour across IIT, IIT-Roorkee is 50% which is highest in this

category and lowest is IIT Kharagpur which is 0%, The patterns clearly indicates a

significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed the chi


significant.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Avg. time spend in a week on reading articles from

INDEST E-Resources by IIT’s of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant


274

Table 5.18.1 Avg. time do you spend in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources by Name of the IIT

S/N

Avg. time spent in a

week on reading

INDEST article

Name of the IIT

Total


1 Less than 1 hour 0 (0) 5 (5) 5 (6) 13 (36) 6 (18) 5 (7) 17 (50) 51 (13)

2 1-2 hours 7 (16) 47 (45) 40 (45) 9 (25) 6 (18) 24 (35) 3 (9) 136 (33)

3 2-4 hours 5 (11) 37 (36) 8 (9) 11 (31) 3 (9) 12 (17) 3 (9) 79 (19)

4 More than 4 hours 34 (73) 13 (14) 34 (40) 3 (8) 21 (56) 29 (41) 11 (32) 145 (35)

Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 87 (100) 36 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)



Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati,

IITR= IIT Roorkee

275


Resources by Designation

Table 5.18.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and Average

time spent in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, ‘More than 4

hours’ across Designation is higher compared to other time spent. Professor is 46%

which is highest in this category and lowest is Associate Professor which is 23%,

however; in the category 1-2 hours, Associate Professor is 39% and lowest is

Professor with 27%. For 2-4 hours and Designation, Associate Professor has the

highest value of 32% and Professor has the lowest value of 14%. For less than 1 hour,

Assistant Professor has the highest value of 17% and Associate Professor has 5%. The

patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is




INDEST E-Resources by Designation of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant


Table 5.18.2 Avg. time do you spend in a week on reading articles from INDEST

E-Resources by Designation

S/N


week on reading

INDEST article

Designation

Total Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

1 Less than 1 hour 22 (13) 5 (5) 24 (17) 51 (13)

2 1-2 hours 48 (27) 37 (39) 53 (37) 138 (33)

3 2-4 hours 23 (14) 30 (32) 22 (16) 75 (19)

4 More than 4 hours 81 (46) 22 (23) 44(30) 147 (35)

Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)



276


Resources by Gender

Table 5.18.3 showed the cross tabulation between Gender and Average time

spent in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, More than 4 hours

across Designation is higher compared to other factors. Female is 46% which is

highest in this category and lowest is Male which is 33%, however; in the category 1-

2 hours, Male is 34% and lowest is Female with 30%. For 2-4 hours and Gender, Male

has the highest value of 19% and Female has the lowest value of 17%. For Less than 1

hour, Male has the highest value of 14% and Female has 6%. The patterns clearly



is statistically not significant at 5% level of significance.


INDEST E-Resources by Gender of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant



E-Resources by Gender

S/N Avg. time spent in a week on

reading INDEST article

Gender

Total

Male Female

1 Less than 1 hour 47 (14) 4 (6) 51 (13)

2 1-2 hours 120 (34) 19 (30) 139 (33)

3 2-4 hours 65 (19) 11 (17) 76 (19)

4 More than 4 hours 116 (33) 29 (46) 145 (35)

Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)



277


Resources by Age in Years

Table 5.18.4 showed the cross tabulation between Age and Average time spent

in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, More than 4 hours across

Age is higher compared to other hours spent. 46-55 age group is 52% which is highest

in this category and lowest is 36-45 age group which is 28%, however; in the category

1-2 hours, 36-45 years is 44% and lowest is >56 age group with 24%. For 2-4 hours

and age group, 36-45 has the highest value of 23% and 46-55 has the lowest value of

13%. For less than 1 year, >56 has the highest value of 25% and 36-45 has 6%. The





INDEST E-Resources by Age of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant



E-Resources by Age in Years

S/N


week on reading

INDEST article

Age In Years

Total 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

1 Less than 1 hour 16 (20) 9 (6) 8 (9) 18 (25) 51 (13)

2 1-2 hours 24 (29) 71 (44) 24 (26) 17 (24) 136 (33)

3 2-4 hours 16 (20) 39 (23) 12 (13) 13 (18) 80 (19)

4 More than 4 hours 25 (30) 46 (28) 49(52) 24 (33) 144 (35)

Total 81 (100) 165

(100) 93 (100) 72 (100)

411

(100)




Resources by Computer Literacy


Average time spent in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, More

278

than 4 hours across Computer Literacy is higher compared to other source of

awareness. ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 46% which is highest in this category and

lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy which is 21%, however; in the category 1-2

hours, ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 46% and lowest is ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy

group with 23%. For 2-4 hours and Computer Literacy, ‘Good’ has the highest value

of 20% and ‘Average’ has the lowest value of 14%. For Less than 1 hour, ‘Average’

has the highest value of 18% and ‘Expert’ and ‘Good’ has 13%. The patterns clearly





INDEST E-Resources by Computer Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have



E-Resources by Computer Literacy

S/N

Avg. time spent in a week

on reading INDEST

article

Computer Literacy


1 Less than 1 hour 15 (13) 32 (13) 5 (18) 52 (13)

2 1-2 hours 26 (23) 97 (36) 13 (46) 136 (33)

3 2-4 hours 21 (18) 50 (20) 4 (14) 75 (19)

4 More than 4 hours 58 (46) 84 (32) 6 (21) 148 (35)

Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)



5.18.6 Summary

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) avg. time spent in a week on

reading articles from INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs with different


Summary of section5.18indicates that between IIT’s and Average time spent in a

week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, More than 4 hours is higher

compared to time spent, IIT Kharagpur is 73% and lowest is IIT Kanpur with

279

8%the chi square value is 159.073 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are

statistically significant (Table 5.18.1), between Designation and Average time spent in

a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, ‘More than 4 hours’ across

Designation is higher compared to other time spent. Professor is 46% which is highest

in this category and lowest is Associate Professor which is 23%the chi square value is

31.548 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically significant

(Table 5.18.2), between Gender and Average time spent in a week on reading articles

from INDEST E-Resources, More than 4 hours across Designation is higher compared

to other factors. Female is 46% which is highest in this category and lowest is Male

which is 33%the chi square value is 5.394 and sig value is .15 (> .05), hence

difference is statistically not significant at 5% level of significance (Table 5.18.3),

between Age and Average time spent in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-

Resources, More than 4 hours across Age is higher compared to other hours spent. 46-

55 age group is 52% which is highest in this category and lowest is 36-45 age group

which is 28%the chi square value is 41.876 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence

difference is statistically significant (Table 5.18.4), between Computer Literacy and

Average time spent in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, More

than 4 hours across Computer Literacy is higher compared to other source of

awareness. ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 46% which is highest in this category and

lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy which is 21%the chi square value is 13.307

and sig value is .04 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant (Table 5.18.5).

280

SECTION 19

RECOMMENDATION TO USE INDEST E-RESOURCES FROM FACULTY

(STUDENTS, COLLEAGUES, ETC) OF TOP SEVEN IITs

5.19.0 Introduction

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) recommendation to use INDEST

E-Resources from faculty (students, colleagues, etc.) of top seven IITs with different


Hypothesis – XVIII

Ho: There is no significant difference between Recommend to use INDEST (students

and colleagues) and different demographics (Name of the IITs, Designation,

Gender, Age, Computer literacy)

Ha: There is significant difference between Recommend to use INDEST (students

and colleagues) and different demographics (Name of the IITs, Designation,

Gender, Age, Computer literacy)

5.19.1 IIT Faculty Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others

(students, colleagues, etc.) by Name of the IIT

Table 5.19.1 showed the cross tabulation between IITs and IIT Faculty

Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues,

etc.), Yes for recommending across IIT is higher compared to No. IIT Kharagpur,

Bombay, Madras, Delhi, Guwahati and Roorkee is 100% which is highest in this

category and lowest is IIT Kanpur which is 94%, however; in the category No for

recommending INDEST, IIT Kanpur is 6% and all other IITs are with 0%. The




Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Recommendation to use (students, colleagues, etc.)

INDEST E-Resources by IITs of the respondents and all IITs have significant


281

Table 5.19.1 IIT Faculty Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues, etc.) by Name of the IIT

S/N

Do you

Recommend to use

INDEST

Name of the IIT

Total


1 Yes 46 (100) 102 (100) 86 (100) 34 (94) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 409 (99)

2 No 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1)

Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 86 (100) 36 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)





282


(students, colleagues, etc.) by Name of the IIT by Designation

Table 5.19.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and

recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues,

etc.), Yes for recommendation of INDEST across Designation is higher compared to

No. Associate and Assistant Professor is 100% which is highest in this category and

lowest is Professor which is 99%, however; in the category No, Professor is 1% and

lowest is Assistant and Associate Professor with 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a


square value is 2.863 and sig value is .24 (> .05), hence difference are statistically not

significant.


INDEST E-Resources by Designation of the respondents and all IITs have significant



(students, colleagues, etc.) by Name of the IITs by Designation

S/N Do you Recommend to

use INDEST

Designation

Total Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

1 Yes 172 (99) 94 (100) 143 (100) 409 (99)

2 No 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1)

Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)




(students, colleagues, etc.) by Gender

Table 5.19.3 showed the cross tabulation between Gender and

recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues,

etc.), Yes for Recommendation across Gender is higher compared to No

recommendation. Female is 100% which is highest in this category and lowest is Male

which is 99%, however; in the category No, Male is 1% and lowest is Female with

283

0%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi




INDEST E-Resources by Gender of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant

association (Chi-Square= .377, df = 1 and Sig Value = 0.54)


(students, colleagues, etc.) by Gender

S/N Do you Recommend to use

INDEST

Gender Total

Male Female

1 Yes 346 (99) 63 (100) 409 (99)

2 No 2 (1) 0 (0) 2 (1)

Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)

Pearson Chi-Square=.377; df=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.54



(students, colleagues, etc.) by Age in years

Table 5.19.4 showed the cross tabulation between Age and recommend

INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues, etc.), Yes for recommendation

across Age is higher compared to No. 25-35 and 36-45 age group is 100% which is

highest in this category and lowest is 46-55 and >56 age group which is 99%,

however; in the category No recommendation, 46-55 and >56 years is 1% and lowest

is 25-35 and 36-45 years with 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant

difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 2.981

and sig value is .39 (> .05), hence difference is statistically not significant at 5%.


INDEST E-Resources by Age of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant


284


(students, colleagues, etc.) by Age in years

S/N Do you Recommend

to use INDEST

Age in years Total

25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

1 Yes 81 (100) 165 (100) 92 (99) 71 (99) 409 (99)

2 No 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 (1)

Total 81(100) 165 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)




(students, colleagues, etc.) by Computer Literacy


recommend INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues, etc.), Yes for

recommendation across Computer Literacy is higher compared to No

recommendation. ‘Good’ and ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 100% which is highest

in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy which is 98%, however; in

the category No recommendation, ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 2% and lowest is

‘Good’ and Average Computer Literacy group with 0%. The patterns clearly





INDEST E-Resources by Computer Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have


5.19.5 Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others (students,

colleagues, etc.) by Computer Literacy

S/N Do you Recommend

to use INDEST


Expert Good Average

1 Yes 118 (98) 263 (100) 28 (100) 409 (99)

2 No 2 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1)

Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)



285

5.19.6 Summary

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) recommendation to use INDEST

E-Resources from faculty (students, colleagues, etc.) of top seven IITs with different

demographics like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy/

computer qualification. Summary of section 5.19 indicates that between IIT’s and

recommendation of INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues, etc.), Yes

for recommending across IIT is higher compared to No. IIT Kharagpur, Bombay,

Madras, Delhi, Guwahati and Roorkee is 100% which is highest in this category and

lowest is IIT Kanpur which is 94%the chi square value is 20.324 and sig value is .000

(< .05), hence difference are statistically significant (Table 5.19.1), between

Designation and if respondents would recommend INDEST E-Resources to others

(students, colleagues, etc.), Yes for recommendation of INDEST across Designation is

higher compared to No. Associate and Assistant Professor is 100% which is highest in

this category and lowest is Professor which is 99% the chi square value is 2.863 and

sig value is .24 (> .05), hence difference are statistically not significant (Table 5.19.2),

between Gender and recommend INDEST E-Resources to others (students,

colleagues, etc.), Yes for Recommendation across Gender is higher compared to No

recommendation. Female is 100% which is highest in this category and lowest is Male

which is 99%the chi square value is 0.377 and sig value is .54 (> .05), hence

difference is statistically not significant at 5% level of significance(Table 5.19.3),

between Age and recommend INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues,

etc.), Yes for recommendation across Age is higher compared to No. 25-35 and 36-45

age group is 100% which is highest in this category and lowest is 46-55 and >56 age

group which is 99% the chi square value is 2.981 and sig value is .39 (> .05), hence

difference is statistically not significant at 5% (Table 5.19.4), between Computer

Literacy and recommend INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues,

etc.), Yes for recommendation across Computer Literacy is higher compared to No

recommendation. ‘Good’ and ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 100% which is highest

in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy which is 98%the chi


significant(Table 5.19.5).

286

SECTION 20

NEED TO IMPROVE SKILLS TO USE INDEST E-RESOURCES BY THE


5.20.0 Introduction

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) need to improve skills to use

INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics

like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy.

Hypothesis – XIX

Ho: There is no significant difference between Need to improve skill in the use of

INDEST E-Resources and different demographics (Name of the IITs,

Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy)

Ha: There is significant difference between Need to improve skill in the use of

INDEST E-Resources and different demographics (Name of the IITs,

Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy)

5.20.1 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Name of the

IIT

Table 5.20.1 showed the cross tabulation between IIT’s and Need to improve

skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources; no need to improve across IIT is higher

compared to need to improve skills. IIT-Madras is 83% which is highest in this

category and lowest is IIT Roorkee which is 32%, however; in the category Yes for

need to improve skills, IIT Roorkee is 68% and lowest is IIT Madras with 17%. The




Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-

Resources by IIT’s of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-


287

Table 5.20.1 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Name of the IIT

S/N Need to improve Skills in

the use of INDEST

Name of the IIT

Total


1 Yes 8 (18) 44 (43) 15 (17) 9 (26) 11 (31) 30 (43) 23 (68) 140 (34)

2 No 38 (82) 58 (57) 72 (83) 27 (74) 25 (69) 40(57) 11 (32) 271 (66)

Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 87 (100) 36 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)





288

5.20.2 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Designation

Table 5.20.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and Need to

improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources, No across Designation is higher

compared to Yes. Assistant Professor is 69% which is highest in this category and

lowest is Professor which is 65%, however; in the category Yes, Associate Professor

is 39% and lowest is Assistant Professor with 31%.The patterns clearly indicates a



significant.


Resources by Designation of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association

(Chi-Square= 1.750, df = 2 and Sig Value = 0.42)

Table 5.20.2 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by

Designation

S/N Need to improve Skills

in the use of INDEST

Designation

Total Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

1 Yes 58 (35) 36 (39) 43 (31) 137 (35)

2 No 116 (65) 58 (61) 100 (69) 274 (66)

Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)



5.20.3 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Gender

Table 5.20.3 showed the cross tabulation between Gender and Need to

improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources, No across Designation is higher

compared to Yes. Male is 67% which is highest in this category and lowest is Female

which is 60%, however; in the category Yes, Female is 40% and lowest is Male with

33%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi



289


Resources by Gender of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association

(Chi-Square= .949, df = 1 and Sig Value = 0.33)

Table 5.20.3Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Gender

S/N Need to improve Skills in the

use of INDEST

Gender Total

Male Female

1 Yes 112 (33) 25 (40) 137 (34)

2 No 236 (67) 38 (60) 274 (66)

Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)

Pearson Chi-Square=.949; df=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.33


5.20.4 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Age in Years

Table 5.20.4 showed the cross tabulation between Age and Need to improve

skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources, No across Age is higher compared to

Yes. 46-55 age group is 76% which is highest in this category and lowest is 36-45 age

group which is 58%, however; in the category Yes, 36-45 years is 42% and lowest is

46-55 age group with 24%.The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in


value is .02 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant.


Resources by Age of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-


Table 5.20.4 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Age in

Years

S/N

Need to improve

Skills in the use of

INDEST

Age in years

Total 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

1 Yes 22 (28) 65 (42) 22 (24) 28 (39) 137 (34)

2 No 59(72) 100 (58) 71 (76) 44 (61) 274 (66)

Total 81 (100) 165 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)



290

5.20.5 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Computer

Literacy


Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources, No across Computer

Literacy is higher compared to Yes. ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 76% which is

highest in this category and lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy which is 38%,

however; in the category Yes, ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 62% and lowest is

‘Expert’ Computer Literacy group with 24%. The patterns clearly indicates a



significant.


Resources by Computer Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant


Table 5.20.5 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by

Computer Literacy

S/N Need to improve Skills in

the use of INDEST


Expert Good Average

1 Yes 27 (24) 92 (36) 18 (62) 137 (34)

2 No 93 (76) 171 (64) 10 (38) 274 (66)

Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)



5.20.6 Summary

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) need to improve skills to use

INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics


qualification. Summary of the section 5.20 indicates that between IIT’s and Need to

improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources, No need to improve across IIT is

higher compared to need to improve skills. IIT-Madras is 83% which is highest in this

category and lowest is IIT Roorkee which is 32%the chi square value is 40.214 and

291

sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically significant (Table 5.20.1),

between Designation and Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-

Resources, No across Designation is higher compared to Yes. Assistant Professor is

69% which is highest in this category and lowest is Professor which is 65%the chi


significant (Table 5.20.2), between Gender and Need to improve skill in the use of

INDEST E-Resources, No across Designation is higher compared to Yes. Male is 67%

which is highest in this category and lowest is Female which is 60%the chi


significant at 5% level of significance (Table 5.20.3), between Age and Need to

improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources, No across Age is higher compared

to Yes. 46-55 age group is 76% which is highest in this category and lowest is 36-45

age group which is 58%the chi square value is 10.432 and sig value is .02 (< .05),

hence difference is statistically significant (Table 5.20.4), between Computer Literacy

and Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources, No across Computer

Literacy is higher compared to Yes. ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 76% which is

highest in this category and lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy which is


statistically significant(Table 5.20.5).

292

SECTION 21

NEED TRAINING /ORIENTATION FOR EFFECTIVELY ACCESSING OF

INDEST E-RESOURCES USAGE BY FACULTY OF TOP SEVEN IITs

5.21.0 Introduction

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) Need training /orientation for

effectively accessing of INDEST E-Resources usage by faculty of top seven IITs with

different demographics like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer

literacy.

Hypothesis – XX

Ho: There is no significant difference between Need training /orientation for

effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources and different demographics (Name

of the IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, and computer literacy)

Ha: There is significant difference between Need training /orientation for effectively

accessing INDEST E-Resources and different demographics (Name of the IITs,

Designation, Gender, Age and computer literacy)

5.21.1 Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources

by Name of the IIT

Table 5.21.1 showed the cross tabulation between IIT’s and Need training

/orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No across IIT is higher

compared to Yes. IIT Kharagpur is 96% which is highest in this category and lowest is

IIT Roorkee which is 35%, however; in the category Yes, IIT Roorkee is 65% and

lowest is IIT Kharagpur with 4%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant

difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is

48.874 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically significant.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Need training /orientation for effectively accessing

of INDEST E-Resources by IIT’s of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant


293

Table 5.21.1 Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-

Resources by Name of the IIT

S/N

Need

training

/orientation

Name of the IIT


1 Yes 2 (4) 17 (18) 13 (15) 8 (23) 7 (21) 19 (28) 22 (65) 88 (22)

2 No 44 (96) 85 (82) 74 (85) 28 (77) 29 (79) 51 (72) 12 (35) 323 (78)

Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 87 (100) 36 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)



Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT

Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee


by Designation

Table 5.21.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and Need

training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No across

Designation is higher compared to Yes. Associate Professor is 86% which is highest

in this category and lowest is Professor which is 75%, however; in the category Yes,

Professor is 25% and lowest is Associate Professor with 14%. The patterns clearly



are statistically not significant.


of INDEST E-Resources by Designation of the respondents and all IITs have



Resources by Designation

S/N Need training /orientation

Designation

Total Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

1 Yes 42 (25) 13 (14) 33 (24) 88 (22)

2 No 132 (75) 81 (86) 110 (76) 323 (78)

Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)



294


by Gender

Table 5.21.3 showed the cross tabulation between Gender and Need training

/orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No across Designation is

higher compared to Yes. Female is 87% which is highest in this category and lowest is

Male which is 76%, however; in the category Yes, Male is 24% and lowest is Female

with 13%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove

this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 3.810 and sig value is .05 (= .05),

hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of significance.


of INDEST E-Resources by Gender of the respondents and all IITs have significant



Resources by Gender

S/N Need training /orientation Gender

Total Male Female

1 Yes 80 (24) 8 (13) 88 (22)

2 No 268 (76) 55 (87) 323 (78)

Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)




by Age in Years

Table 15.23.4 showed the cross tabulation between Age and Need training

/orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No across Age is higher

compared to Yes. 46-55 age group is 90% which is highest in this category and lowest

is >56 age group which is 63%, however; in the category Yes, >56 years is 37% and

lowest is 46-55 age group with 10%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant

difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is

16.905 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant.


of INDEST E-Resources by Age of the respondents and all IITs have significant


295


Resources by Age in Years

S/N Need training

/orientation

Age in years Total

25-35 36-45 46-55 >56

1 Yes 17 (22) 36 (23) 9 (10) 26 (37) 88 (22)

2 No 64 (78) 129 (77) 84 (90) 46 (63) 323 (78)

Total 81 (100) 165 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)




by Computer Literacy


Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No across

Computer Literacy is higher compared to Yes. ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 87%

which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy which is

45%, however; in the category Yes, ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 55% and lowest

is ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy group with 13%. The patterns clearly indicates a


square value is 23.829 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference statistically

significant.

Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates need training /orientation for effectively accessing

of INDEST E-Resources by computer literacy to the respondents and all IITs have



Resources by Computer Literacy

S/N Need training

/orientation


Expert Good Average

1 Yes 15 (13) 58 (23) 16 (55) 89 (22)

2 No 105 (87) 205 (77) 12 (45) 322 (78)

Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)



296

5.21.6 Summary

This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) Need training /orientation for

effectively accessing of INDEST E-Resources usage by faculty of top seven IITs with

different demographics like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer

literacy. Summary of the section 5.20 indicates that between IIT’s and Need training

/orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No across IIT is higher

compared to Yes. IIT-Kharagpur is 96% which is highest in this category and lowest

is IIT Roorkee which is 35%the chi square value is 48.874 and sig value is .000 (<

.05), hence difference are statistically significant (Table 5.20.1), between Designation

and Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No

across Designation is higher compared to Yes. Associate Professor is 86% which is

highest in this category and lowest is Professor which is 75% the chi square value is

5.344 and sig value is .07 (> .05), hence difference are statistically not significant

(Table 5.20.2), Gender and Need training /orientation for effectively accessing

INDEST E-Resources, No across Designation is higher compared to Yes. Female is

87% which is highest in this category and lowest is Male which is 76%the chi

square value is 3.810 and sig value is .05 (= .05), hence difference is statistically

significant at 5% level of significance (Table 5.20.3), Age and Need training

/orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No across Age is higher

compared to Yes. 46-55 age group is 90% which is highest in this category and lowest

is >56 age group which is 63% the chi square value is 16.905 and sig value is .00 (<

.05), hence difference is statistically significant (Table 5.20.4), between Computer

Literacy and Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-

Resources, No across Computer Literacy is higher compared to Yes. ‘Expert’

Computer Literacy is 87% which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Average’

Computer Literacy which is 45% the chi square value is 23.829 and sig value is .00 (<

.05), hence difference statistically significant (Table 5.20.5).

Documents

CHAPTER V ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATAshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/108431... · CHAPTER V ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 5.1.0 Introduction This chapter deals with