CHAPTER -VII Data Analysis and Interpretation.shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/3297/14/14...7. 5 DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION Table Library Effectiveness at High Automation

CHAPTER -VII

Data Analysis and Interpretation.

7. 1

DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION

The present study is intended to investigate about Library Effectiveness

by maintaining Library Automation in the University Libraries of

Chhattisgarh. Using appropriate statistical tables, common reference of F-

ratio was applied to test the significance of differences for verification of

various hypotheses. Scores for all the scales collected from all the samples

were analysed separately. The outcome of statistical analysis is compiled in

tables and figures followed by interpretation.

The major prerequisites for effective data analysis using ANOVA

technique are the normally distributed and homogenous data. For judging

normality of any given data, the best ways prescribed are to calculate the

skew ness and kurtosis of the distribution pertaining to the data.

A distribution is said to be skewed when the mean and median fall at

different points in the distribution, and the balance of the centre of gravity

is shifted to one side or the other – i.e. to the left or the right. Ideally the

skew ness value should therefore be exactly “0” (zero) for mean and

median to fall at the same point. The skew ness of the dependent variable

Library Effectiveness in this case is -0.233 with a standard error of 0.121.

Therefore, the data was found to insignificantly skew.

The term kurtosis refers to the flatness of a frequency distribution

compared with the normal distribution. While according to Garrett (1989)

the standard Kurtosis value of normally distributed data should be exactly

7. 2


0.263, the kurtosis value of dependent variable Library Effectiveness in this

study was found to be -0.003 with a standard error of 0.241. Therefore, it

was inferred that the data being insignificantly Kurt was almost normally

distributed.

Further, using the Levene‟s test for measuring homogeneity of the data,

significant results (p=.000) were obtained which denied the homogeneity

of data. Therefore, following McNemar (1962), as the two assumption were

not absolutely fulfilled, but ANOVA being a robust technique that

overlooks near miss cases, for further analysis of results, the level of

significance as an accept/reject criteria was kept stringent at 0.01 level i.e.

(p<.01).

As mentioned earlier, the study further uses a three-dimensional (3x2x8)

ANOVA technique at SPSS to analyse the data whereby numerical values

were assigned for various independent variables of the study. Three levels

of Library Automations were studied as low, moderate and high

respectively. For the dimension of Readers, the two categories were

Teachers and Students respectively. For the dimension of Universities, the

eight respective codes were: PRSU for Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University,

GGU for Guru Ghasidas University, IGKV for Indira Gandhi Krishi

Vishwavidyalaya, IKSV for Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya, HNLU for

Hidayatullah National Law University, CSVTU for Chhattisgarh Swami

Vivekanand Technical University, PSOU for Pandit Sundarlal Sharma (Open)

University and finally KBTV for Kushabhau Thakre Patrakarita Avam

7. 3


Jansanchar Vishwavidyalaya. Finally, Library Effectiveness was observed as

the dependent variable.

For the first problem, where it was hypothesised that Libraries with higher

automation level will show more effectiveness than libraries with lower level

of automation, the Table 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 below mention the

descriptive statistics and mean scores for the dependent variable Library

Effectiveness at low, moderate, high and total level of Library Automation

respectively.

Library Effectiveness at Low Automation Level

Table – 7.1

Automation

Level Readers Library Mean

Std.

Deviation Sample

LOW Teacher

s

PRSU 84.18 1.36802 5

GGU 80.616 2.214663 5

IGKV 74.664 3.273604 5

IKSV 71.828 1.885715 5

HNLU 69.54 1.456802 5

CSVTU 68.808 1.636802 5

PSOU 64.416 2.004665 5

KBTV 60.112 1.932698 5

Total 71.7705 7.714259 40

Students PRSU 65.7336 0.32736 5

GGU 65.148 0.32736 5

IGKV 63.0252 0.24552 5

IKSV 62.32972 0.353051 5

HNLU 61.8906 0.621912 5

CSVTU 60.99024 0.821912 5

PSOU 59.7996 0.650223 5

KBTV 57.0964 1.843376 5

Total 62.00167 2.744664 40

Total PRSU 74.9568 9.724556 10

GGU 72.882 8.153608 10

IGKV 68.8446 6.512903 10

IKSV 67.07886 5.166834 10

HNLU 65.7153 4.031588 10

CSVTU 64.89912 4.297442 10

PSOU 62.1078 2.809582 10

KBTV 58.6042 2.386723 10

Total 66.88609 7.566813 80

7. 4


Library Effectiveness at Moderate Automation Level

Table –7.2

Automation Level Readers Library Mean Std. Deviation Sample

MODERATE Teachers PRSU 191.784 2.004665 5

GGU 185.864 3.923325 5

IGKV 178.608 1.636802 5

IKSV 174.212 2.010154 5

HNLU 127.368 6.547207 5

CSVTU 123.708 1.636802 5

PSOU 119.292 2.03797 5

KBTV 88.572 1.636802 5

Total 148.676 36.52433 40

Students PRSU 143.89 1.459893 5

GGU 139.446 3.006997 5

IGKV 133.956 1.227601 5

IKSV 130.659 1.507616 5

HNLU 95.526 4.910405 5

CSVTU 92.781 1.227601 5

PSOU 89.519 1.460776 5

KBTV 70.0524 5.755634 5

Total 111.9787 26.71526 40

Total PRSU 167.837 25.29644 10

GGU 162.655 24.68539 10

IGKV 156.282 23.57317 10

IKSV 152.4355 23.01549 10

HNLU 111.447 17.64683 10

CSVTU 108.2445 16.35693 10

PSOU 104.4055 15.78054 10

KBTV 79.3122 10.54443 10

Total 130.3273 36.76739 80

7. 5


Library Effectiveness at High Automation Level


HIGH Teachers PRSU 265.716 2.004665 5

GGU 262.056 2.004665 5

IGKV 256.892 1.661421 5

IKSV 210.084 2.004665 5

HNLU 204.96 1.653735 5

CSVTU 203.496 2.004665 5

PSOU 199.776 1.953735 5

KBTV 193.98 1.387635 5

Total 224.62 29.41744 40

Students PRSU 172.7154 1.303032 5

GGU 170.3364 1.303032 5

IGKV 167.0998 1.031647 5

IKSV 157.563 1.503498 5

HNLU 153.72 1.387635 5

CSVTU 152.627 1.496678 5

PSOU 149.877 1.503498 5

KBTV 145.485 1.786451 5

Total 158.678 9.653105 40

Total PRSU 219.2157 49.04153 10

GGU 216.1962 48.36675 10

IGKV 211.9959 47.3426 10

IKSV 183.8235 27.73136 10

HNLU 179.34 27.00585 10

CSVTU 178.0615 26.86214 10

PSOU 174.8265 26.35039 10

KBTV 169.7325 25.55911 10

Total 191.649 39.6745 80

Table – 7.3

7. 6


Total of Library Effectiveness at All Automation Levels

Table – 7.4


TOTAL Teachers PRSU 180.56 77.16646 15

GGU 176.1787 77.0355 15

IGKV 170.0547 77.28931 15

IKSV 152.0413 60.66289 15

HNLU 133.956 57.53472 15

CSVTU 132.004 57.26245 15

PSOU 127.828 57.56999 15

KBTV 114.2213 59.61868 15

Total 148.3555 68.31486 120

Students PRSU 127.4463 46.79474 15

GGU 124.9768 45.72796 15

IGKV 121.3603 44.94379 15

IKSV 116.8506 41.50914 15

HNLU 103.7122 39.35248 15

CSVTU 102.1328 39.33995 15

PSOU 99.73187 38.80941 15

KBTV 90.87793 40.47065 15

Total 110.8861 42.87564 120

Total PRSU 154.0032 68.27422 30

GGU 150.5777 67.47143 30

IGKV 145.7075 66.87448 30

IKSV 134.446 54.11668 30

HNLU 118.8341 50.8155 30

CSVTU 117.0684 50.60491 30

PSOU 113.7799 50.31182 30

KBTV 102.5496 51.4542 30

Total 129.6208 59.92886 240

7. 7


Table 7.4, reveals the overall mean score of 129.62 making a

favourable indication that Library Automations positively effects the Library

Effectiveness perception of Readers. Further, for the effects of various levels

of Library Automations on Library Effectiveness, the mean scores of 66.89,

130.33 and 191.64 respectively at the low, moderate and higher levels of

Library Automation make it clearly evident that higher the Library

Automation more will be the Library Effectiveness perception of the Readers.

For the second problem, that Teachers will perceive higher library

effectiveness compared to Students, the respective mean scores of

Teachers and Students as 148.36 and 110.87 proved that the Teachers of all

libraries perceived their library as more effective compared to their students.

Analysis of Variance Summary Table: Overall Library Effectiveness

Source

Type III

Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square F

Level of

Significance

MAIN EFFECTS

1 Automation Level 622691.1 2 311345.5 30.148 0.000

2 Readers 84237.36 1 84237.36 16.52 0.001

3 Library 77203.63 7 11029.09 24.15 0.001

FIRST ORDER INTERACTION

1 Automation Level X

Readers 31572.19 2 15786.1 19.74 0.000

2 Automation Level X Library 31515.94 14 2251.139 19.21 0.001

3 Readers X Library 7213.936 7 1030.562 27.168 0.002

SECOND ORDER INTERACTION

1 Automation Level X

Readers X Library 3055.843 14 218.274 14.114 0.000

Error 871.021 192 4.537

Total 4890733 240

R Squared = .999 (Adjusted R Squared = .999)

Table – 7.5

7. 8


The Table 7.5 entitled as the “Analysis of Variance Summary Table:

Overall Library Effectiveness” exhibits the three way ANOVA results for the

dependent variable „Library Effectiveness‟.

According to Table 7.5 whereby significant main effect value (F =

20.148, p=.000) was found thus there remained no two ways to accept the

first hypothesis that Library Automations strongly affect the Library

Effectiveness.

Further the Figure 7.1 below also reveals that with the increase in level of

Library Automation level from low to higher, Library Effectiveness scores also

increase proportionately.

LOW MODERATE HIGH

Estimated Marginal Means of Library Effectiveness

at Various Levels of Library Automation

FIGURE : 1

Library

Effectiveness

(in Reader’s

Perception)

increases with

Library

Automation

Level

LOW MODERATE HIGH



FIGURE : 1

Library

Effectiveness

(in Reader’s

Perception)

increases with

Library

Automation

Level

Library

Effectiveness

(in Reader’s

Perception)

increases with

Library

Automation

Level

Figure – 7.1

7. 9


For the second problem, that Teachers will show higher Library

Effectiveness compared to their Students National Companies. The Table

7.5, with significant main effect value (F = 16.52, p=.001) exhibited that

there are significant differences between perceptions of Teachers and

Students for the overall Library Effectiveness perceptions higher Library

Automations in their University Library. Further, the Figure 7.2 also shows such

significant difference among the two types of Readers for their perceptions

over Library Effectiveness. Therefore in view of such results, the second

hypothesis too was accepted.

Figure –7.2

TEACHERS STUDENTS


for Different Readers

Perceptions on

Library

Effectiveness

Varies Between

(Readers)

Teachers &

Students

(Teachers-High;

Students-Low)

ReadersTEACHERS STUDENTS


for Different Readers

Perceptions on

Library

Effectiveness

Varies Between

(Readers)

Teachers &

Students

(Teachers-High;

Students-Low)

Readers

7. 10


The third main effect, „Libraries‟ i.e. the eight University Libraries of

Chhattisgarh, studies the different levels of Automation in subjected

Libraries and its effect on the perception of the Readers over its

Effectiveness state. According to the Table 7.5, again the significant main

effect value (F = 24.15, p=.0001), indicated that the Libraries in the present

study vary with their levels of Automation and resulting in a varying reader

perception over their Effectiveness status.

Figure 7.3 below exhibits the above stated result that the reader

perception on Library Effectiveness varies across PRSU, GGU, IGKV, IKSV,

HNLU, CSVTU, PSOU & KBTV.

PRSU


at Different Libraries

GGU IKSV HNLU PSOUCSVYU KBTVIGKV

Libraries

Library

Effectiveness

(in Reader’s

Perception)

Varies at

Different

Libraries

PRSU


at Different Libraries

GGU IKSV HNLU PSOUCSVYU KBTVIGKV

Libraries

Library

Effectiveness

(in Reader’s

Perception)

Varies at

Different

Libraries

Figure – 7.3

7. 11


So far, we have discussed the role of independent variables – Level of

Library Automation, Readers and, Libraries. It would also provide useful and

important information if the joint effects of any two or more factors are

studied. The greatest advantage we get from analysis of variance technique

is that it provides an opportunity to examine the interaction between two or

more variables at a time.

It is possible for a treatment to affect one group differentially than it does to

another. Also it is possible for the effect of one treatment to depend on the

specific circumstances under which it is administered. When the effect of one

treatment depends on a second treatment, an interaction is obtained. Here,

in the three-way analysis of variance, we get three such first-order interactions

between any two factors, and one second-order interaction among all the

three factors.

The three first-order interactions that the present study undertook were the

interactions between (1) Level of Library Automation and Reader (2) Level of

Library Automation and Libraries and (3) Readers and Libraries. According to

Table 7.5, all three first-order order interactions were found to have significant

results. Table 7.5 exhibits these significant results as (F = 19.74, p =.000) for Level

of Library Automation and Reader; (F = 19.21, p =.001) for Level of Library

Automation and Libraries; (F = 27.168, p =.002) for Readers and Libraries. From

7. 12


such results it could be inferred that highly significant relationships exist

between the three independent variables used in the present study.

The figure – 7.4 exhibits the first order interaction between the Library‟s

Automation Level and their Readers. The figure suggests a visible gap in

perceptions of Readers i.e. Teachers and Students. Further, the perception of

Readers for Library Effectiveness Increases more with the movement from Low

to Moderate Level of Automation as compared to the movement from

Moderate to High Level of Automation. It is also worthwhile to mention that

with the change in Level of Library Automation the relative increase in Library

Effectiveness perception of Teachers is relatively higher as compared to that

of their Students.

Estimated Marginal Means of Library Effectiveness for Different Readers


TEACHERS STUDENTS

LOW

MODERATE

HIGH

Readers

First Order

Interaction

Library

Effectiveness

Perceptions of

Teachers &

Students at All

Levels of

Library

Automation

Estimated Marginal Means of Library Effectiveness for Different Readers


TEACHERS STUDENTS

LOW

MODERATE

HIGH

Readers

First Order

Interaction

Library

Effectiveness

Perceptions of

Teachers &

Students at All

Levels of

Library

Automation

Readers

First Order

Interaction

Library

Effectiveness

Perceptions of

Teachers &

Students at All

Levels of

Library

Automation

Figure – 7.4

7. 13


The figure 7.5 below exhibits the next first order interaction of Libraries at

various Levels of Automation. The figure clearly indicates that there is a

variance among the scores of various Libraries at the each Level of

Automation. Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Library scored highest at

all levels, followed by Guru Ghasidas University, Indira Gandhi Krishi

Vishwavidyalaya, Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya, Hidayatullah

National Law University, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical

University, Pandit Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University and lastly Kushabhau

Thakre Patrakarita Avam Jansanchar Vishwavidyalaya. Notably, the

Effectiveness scores of highest and lowest scoring libraries vary least at low

level of automation followed by high level of Automation and vary most at

the moderate level of Automation.

Estimated Marginal Means of Library Effectiveness for Different Libraries


LOW

MODERATE

HIGH

PRSU GGU IKSV HNLU PSOUCSVYU KBTVIGKV

Libraries

First Order

Interaction

Library

Effectiveness

Perception

Scores of all

Libraries at

Various Levels

of Library

Automation

Estimated Marginal Means of Library Effectiveness for Different Libraries


LOW

MODERATE

HIGH

PRSU GGU IKSV HNLU PSOUCSVYU KBTVIGKV

Libraries

First Order

Interaction

Library

Effectiveness

Perception

Scores of all

Libraries at

Various Levels

of Library

Automation

First Order

Interaction

Library

Effectiveness

Perception

Scores of all

Libraries at

Various Levels

of Library

Automation

Figure – 7.5

7. 14


The second-order interaction giving the combined effect of Level of

Library Automation, Readers and, Libraries with the dependent variable Library

Effectiveness was also studied. According to Table 7.5, significant F-value for

this second-order interaction (F = 14.114, p=.000) was obtained for this joint

interaction indicating a significant interaction of all the independent variables

together with the dependent variable „Library Effectiveness‟. For Teachers, as

shown in Figure 7.6, it was revealed that Library Effectiveness perceptions of

Teachers increases with a rise in Automation level in all the University Libraries

covered in the present study. Also, this change in perception of teachers in all

libraries varies most at Moderate level of Automation followed by High level of

Automation and least at the Low level of Automation.

FOR TEACHERS

PRSU

GGU

IKSV

HNLU

PSOU

CSVYU

KBTV

IGKV

Low Moderate High

Estimated Marginal Means for Library Effectiveness

Libraries

Second Order

Interaction

Perceptions of

Teachers from

all Libraries at

all Levels of

Library

Automation

FOR TEACHERS

PRSU

GGU

IKSV

HNLU

PSOU

CSVYU

KBTV

IGKV

PRSU

GGU

IKSV

HNLU

PSOU

CSVYU

KBTV

IGKV

Low Moderate High


Libraries

Second Order

Interaction

Perceptions of

Teachers from

all Libraries at

all Levels of

Library

Automation

Second Order

Interaction

Perceptions of

Teachers from

all Libraries at

all Levels of

Library

Automation

Figure – 7.6

7. 15


Further, for Students, the Figure – 7.7 below indicates that like Teachers,

the Library Effectiveness perceptions of Students also increases with a rise in

Automation level in all the University Libraries. Also, this change in perception in

all libraries varies most at Moderate level of Automation followed by High level

of Automation and least at the Low level of Automation. However, as

compared to that of the Teachers, such variance is less at Low level and

relatively more at High level and highest at the Moderate level of Automation.

The Table-7.5 also reveals the overall area of association (R Squared

= .999) between the combined independent variables (Library

Automation, Readers, and Libraries) on the dependent variable (Library

FOR STUDENTS

PRSU

GGU

IKSV

HNLU

PSOU

CSVYU

KBTV

IGKV

Low Moderate High


Libraries

Second Order

Interaction

Perceptions of

Students from

all Libraries at

all Levels of

Library

Automation

FOR STUDENTS

PRSU

GGU

IKSV

HNLU

PSOU

CSVYU

KBTV

IGKV

PRSU

GGU

IKSV

HNLU

PSOU

CSVYU

KBTV

IGKV

Low Moderate High


Libraries

Second Order

Interaction

Perceptions of

Students from

all Libraries at

all Levels of

Library

Automation

Figure –7.7

7. 16


Effectiveness) to a significant 99.9%. The aforesaid figure of 99.9% for the

independent variables of the present study leaves only a mere 0.1% scope

for all other variables to influence the Library Effectiveness.

Documents

CHAPTER -VII Data Analysis and Interpretation.shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/3297/14/14...7. 5 DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION Table Library Effectiveness at High Automation