Update Analysis

Chapter-4
Analysis Of the Obtain Data
The present study is designed and conducted to study emotional intelligence,

anxiety and adjustment of intermediate tribal and non tribal students of East
Singhbhum. It may be recorded that we have selected the sample by using
stratified random sampling technique. The stratification is based on ethnicity
(tribal and non tribal), gender (male and female), socio economic status (high
socio economic and low socio economic status) and place of residence (rural
and urban). Thus the sample is based on 2x2x2x2=16 factorial design. In
each of the 16 sub group researcher has selected 20 cases. To keep the study
focused three objectives were framed.
On the basis of the objectives six hypotheses were framed and tested. They
are as follows:
Hypotheses
The level of emotional intelligence, anxiety and adjustment will not

vary in intermediate students as a whole and in its different subgroups.
The non-tribal students will not differ significantly in emotional

intelligence, anxiety and adjustment than tribal students.
Female students will not differ significantly in emotional

intelligence, anxiety and adjustment than male students.
Urban students will not differ significantly in emotional intelligence,

anxiety and adjustment than rural students.
The students of high socio-economic status will not differ

significantly in emotional intelligence, anxiety and adjustment than
the students of low socio-economic status.
Emotional intelligence will have a significant positive correlation

with adjustment and a negative correlation with anxiety.
This chapter is divided into four sections namely section-1, section-2, section3 and section-4. Section-1 presents the analysis of emotional intelligence,
section-2 analysis of anxiety, section-3 analysis of adjustment and section-4

presents the correlation co-efficient of three variables namely emotional
intelligence, anxiety and adjustment.
Section-1
Table 1.1: presenting the main effect, interaction

effect and second order effect of different groups on
Emotional Intelligence: F-ratio
Source
A
SS
11720035.78
Df
1
MS
11720035.78
F-RATIO
2.390
16839594.88
16839594.88
3.434
16839138.88
16839138.88
3.434
17850401.07
5
17850401.07
5
3.6405
AXB
117420348.8
3
11720348.83
2.390
AXC
11720036.62
11720036.62
2.390
AXD
12732583.90
5
12732583.90
5
2.596
BXC
1683706.57
1683706.57
0.343
BXD
1789471.675
1789471.675
0.364
CXD
17849854.47
5
178419854.4
75
3.640
AXBXCXD
120015287.4
9
120015287.4
9
With in
treatment
error
1490581246
304
4903227.78
24.476
Main effect:
The main effect of gender on emotional intelligence is found
insignificant. In others words male and female students does not differ
significantly on their level of emotional intelligence. The main effect of
ethnicity is also found in is significant means tribal and non tribal
students not differ significantly. Further the main effect of residence
and socio-economic status is also found insignificant on emotional
intelligence. In other words Urban and rural students and students
belonging to high socio economic status and students belonging to low
socio economic status not differ significantly on their emotional
intelligence level.
Interaction effect:
Further the table reveals that the interaction effect of gender and
ethnicity, gender and residence, gender and socio economic status,
ethnicity and residency ethnicity and socio economic status and
residence, gender and socio economic status, ethnicity and residence,
ethnicity and socio - economic status and residence and socio
economic status is found insignificant on emotional intelligence. In
other words it can be said that no variables jointly of affects emotional
intelligence.
Second order Interaction
The above table depicts the second order interaction of gender,
residence, ethnicity and socio economic status on emotional
intelligence and it is found significant at .01 level. It can be concluded
that all the above mention variables influence significantly emotional
intelligence.
TABLE No. 5
PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF EMOTIONAL
INTELLIGENCE
High
Percentage
Overall
320
112
35%
Moderat
e
119
Male
160
35
33.125%
Female
160
60
Tribal
160
Non-Tribal
Groups
Percentage
Low
Percentage
62.187%
2.812%
104
65%
1.875%
37.5%
97
60.625%
1.875%
35
21.875%
121
75.0%
2.5%
160
75
46.875%
79
49%
3.75%
Rural
160
61
38.125%
96
60%
1.875%
Urban
160
50
31.25%
103
64.375%
4.375%
H.SES
160
45
28.125%
112
70%
1.875%
L.SES
160
64
40%
88
55%
5%
TABLE No.-5
Presents the level of emotional intelligence of different sub-groups based on male,
female, tribal, non-tribal, rural, urban, high socio-economic status, low socio-economic
status and overall sample. To fulfill the purpose the scores splited into three categories
namely high, moderate and low level of emotional intelligence. It is clear from the table
that overall sample (N = 320), 112 Students (35%) fall in high level, 119 students
(62.18%) fall in moderate level and rest 9 (Nine) students (2.812%) falll in low level of
emotional intelligence.
Further the table reveals that over all male group (N = 160) have 53 students (33.125%)
in high level, 104 students (65%) in moderate level and 3 (three) students (1.875%) in
low level of emotional intelligence.
On the other side female group (N = 160) a total number of 60 students (37.5%) fall in
high level, 97 students (60.625%) in moderate level and 3 students (1.875%) fall in low
level of emotional intelligence.
In the tribal group (N = 160), 35 students (21.875%) fall in high level, 121 students
(75.625%) fall in moderate level and only 4 students (2.5%) fall in low level of emotional
intelligence.
On the other side non-tribal group (N = 160), 75 students (46.875%) fall in high level, 75
students (49.375%) fall in moderate level and only 6 students (3.75%) fall in low level of
Further the table reveals that overall rural group (N = 160) have 61 students (38.125%)
fall in high level, 96 students (60%) fall in moderate level and 3 students (1.875%) fall in
low level of emotional intelligence.
On the other side urban group (N = 160) a total no. of 50 students (31.25%) fall in high
level, 102 students (64.375%) fall in moderate level and 7 students (4.375%) fall in low
level of emotional intelligence.
In the high socio-economic status group (N = 160), 45 students (28.125%) fall in high
level, 112 students (70%) fall in moderate level and 3 students (1.875%) fall in low level
of emotional intelligence.
On the other side low socio-economic status groups (N = 160), 64 students (40%) fall in
high level, 88 students (55%) fall in moderate level and 8 students (5%) fall in low level
of emotional intelligence.
TABLE No. 5.1

PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF INTRA PERSONAL
AWARENESS (EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE)
High
Percentage
Moderat
e
Percentage
Low
Percentage
Overall
320
137
42.812%
144
45%
39
12.187%
Male
160
61
31.125%
88
55%
11
6.875%
Female
160
79
49.375%
70
43.75%
11
6.875%
Tribal
160
62
38.75%
74
46.25%
24
15%
Groups
Non-Tribal
160
69
43.125%
72
45%
19
11.87%
Rural
160
78
48.75%
71
44.37%
11
6.875%
Urban
160
64
40%
80
50%
16
10%
H.SES
160
68
42.5%
77
48.12%
15
9.375%
L.SES
160
66
41.25%
80
50%
14
8.75%
TABLE NO.-5.1
Presents the percentage level of students on intra personal awareness (Emotional
Intelligence) of different sub-groups based on male, female, tribal, non-tribal, rural,
urban, high socio-economic status, low socio-economic status and over all sample. To
fulfill the purpose the emotional intelligence scores splited into three (3) categories
namely high, moderate and low level of intra personal awareness. 137 students
(42.812%) fall under high level, 144 students (45%) fall under moderate level and 39
students (12.187%) fall under low level of intra personal awareness.
Further the table reveals that over all male group (N = 160) have 61 students (31.125%)
fall in high level, 88 students (55%) fall under moderate level and 11 students (6.875%)
fall under low level of intra personal awareness (Emotional Intelligence).
high level, 70 students (43.75%) fall in moderate level and 11 students (6.875%) fall in
low level of intra personal awareness (Emotional Intelligence).
In the tribal group (N = 160), 62 students (38.75%) fall under high level, 74 students
(46.25%) fall under moderate level and 24 students (15%) fall under low level of intra
personal awareness.
On the other side non-tribal group (N = 160) a total number of 69 students (43.125%) fall
under high level, 72 students (45%) fall under moderate level and 19 (11.87%) fall under
low level of intra personal awareness.
Further the table reveals that overall rural group (N = 160) has 78 students (44.37%) fall
under moderate level and 11 students (6.875%) fall under low level of intra personal
awareness.
On the other side urban group (N = 160) a total number of 64 students (40%) fall in high
level, 80 students (50%) fall in moderate level and 16 students (10%) fall in low level of
intra personal awareness (Emotional Intelligence).
In the high socio-economic status group (N = 160), 68 students (42.5%) fall in high level,
77 students (48.12%) fall in moderate level and 15 students (9.375%) fall in low level of
intra personal awareness (Emotional Intelligence).
On the other side low socio-economic status groups (N = 160) have 66 students
(41.25%) fall in high level, 88 students (50%) fall in moderate level and 14 students
(8.75%) fall in low level of intra personal awareness (Emotional Intelligence).
Overall sample (N = 320) has 137 students (42.812%) were found high level, 144
students (45%) were found moderate level and 39 students (12.187%) were found low
level of intra personal awareness of emotional intelligence.
TABLE No. 5.2

PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF INTER PERSONAL
AWARENESS (EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE)
High
Percentage
Moderat
e
Percentage
Low
Percentage
Overall
320
142
44.37%
154
48.12%
24
7.5%
Male
160
77
48.12%
69
43.12%
14
8.75%
Female
160
69
43.12%
76
47.5%
15
9.37%
Tribal
160
61
38.12%
88
55%
11
6.87%
Non-Tribal
160
82
51.25%
67
41.87%
11
6.87%
Rural
160
89
55.62%
63
39.37%
5%
Urban
160
59
36.875%
84
40%
17
10.625%
H.SES
160
65
40.62%
82
51.25%
13
8.12%
L.SES
160
73
45.62%
68
42.5%
19
11.87%
Groups
The above Table No-5.2 : presents the percentage of students on inter personal
awareness dimension of emotional intelligence of different sub-groups based on gender,
ethnicity, place of residence and socio-economic status. Each sub-group has a total
number of 160 (N = 160) sample and each group was scattered into three zones /
categories namely high, moderate and low level. In the male sub-group the number of
sample is N = 160 and 77 students (48.12%) are found high level, 69 students (43.12%)
are found moderate level and 14 students are found low level of interpersonal
awareness of emotional intelligence.
As far as female group is concerned the results differs. A total number of 69 students
(43.12%) are found high level, 76 students (47.5%) are found moderate level and 15
students (9.37%) are found low level, of inter personal awareness of emotional
intelligence.
Further the table reveals that overall tribal group (N = 160) have 61 students (38.12%
are found high level, 88 students (55%) are found moderate level and 11 students
(6.87%) are found low level of interpersonal awareness of emotional intelligence.
On the other side non-tribal group (N = 160), 82 students (51.25%) are found high level,
67 students (41.87%) are found moderate level and 11 students (6.87%) are found low
level of inter personal awareness of emotional intelligence.
In the rural group (N = 160), 89 students (55.62%) are found high level, 63 students
(39.37%) fall in moderate level and 8 students (5%) fall in low level of inter personal
awareness of emotional intelligence.
As far as urban group (N = 160) is concerned the result differs. A total number of 59
students (36.875%) are found high level, 84 students (40%) are found moderate level
and 17 students (10.625%) are found low level of inter personal awareness of emotional
intelligence.
Further the table reveals the overall high socio-economic status group (N = 160), 65
students (40.62%) are found high level, 82 students (51.25%) are found moderate level
and 13 students (8.12%) are found low level of inter personal awareness of emotional
intelligence.
On the other side low socio-economic status group (N = 160), 73 students (45.62%) fall
in high level, 68 students (42.5%) fall in moderate level and 24 students (7.5%) fall in low
level of inter personal awareness of emotional intelligence.
In overall sample (N = 320) have 142 students (44.37%) are found high level, 154
students (48.12%) are found moderate level, and 27 students (7.5%) are found low level
of inter personal awareness of emotional intelligence.
TABLE No. 5.3

PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF INTRA-PERSONAL
MANAGEMENT
High
Percentage
Overall
320
148
46.25%
Moderat
e
150
Male
160
75
46.87%
Female
160
71
Tribal
160
Non-Tribal
Groups
Percentage
Low
Percentage
46.87%
22
6.87%
67
41.87%
18
11.25%
44.37%
81
50.625%
5%
64
40%
83
51.18%
13
8.12%
160
77
48.12%
69
43.12%
14
8.75%
Rural
160
81
50.625%
69
43.12%
10
6.25%
Urban
160
70
43.75%
80
50%
10
6.25%
H.SES
160
66
41.25%
87
54.37%
4.37%
L.SES
160
80
50%
69
43.12%
11
6.87%
The above Table No.-5.3 : Presents the percentage of students on intra personal
management of different sub-groups based on gender, ethnicity, place of residence and
socio-economic status. Each group has a total number of 160 (N = 160) and each group
was scattered into three zone / categories namely high, moderate and low level. In the
male group the number of sample is ( N = 160 ), 75 students (46.25%) are found high
level, 150 students (46.87%) are found moderate level and 22 students (6.87%) are
found low level of intra personal management of emotional intelligence.
As far as female group is concerned the result differs. A total numbers of 71 students
(44.37%) are found high level, 81 students (50.625%) are found moderate level and only
8 students (5%) are found low level of intra personal management of emotional
intelligence.
Further the table reveals that overall tribal group (N = 160), 64 students (40%) are found
high level, 83 students (50.625%) are found moderate level and 13 students (8.12%) are
found low level of intra personal management of emotional intelligence.
On the other side non-tribal group (N = 160), 77 students (48.12%) are found high level,
level of intra personal management of emotional intelligence.
(43.12%) are found moderate level and 10 students (6.25%) are found low level of intra
personal management of emotional intelligence.
students (43.75%) are found high level, 80 students (50%) are found moderate level and
10 students (6.25%) are found low level of intra personal management of emotional
intelligence.
Further the table reveals that overall high socio-economic status group (N = 160), 66
and 7 students (4.37%) are found low level of intra personal management of emotional
intelligence.
On the other side low socio-economic status groups (N = 160), 80 students (50%) are
found high level, 69 students (43.12%) are found moderate level and 11 students
(6.87%) are found low level of intra personal management of emotional intelligence.
Overall sample (N = 320) have 148 students (46.25%) are found high level, 150 student
(46.87%) are found moderate level and 22 students (6.87%) are found low level of intra
personal management of emotional intelligence.
TABLE No. 5.4

PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF INTERPERSONAL
MANAGEMENT OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
High
Percentage
Male
160
70
43.75%
Moderat
e
76
Female
160
65
40.62%
Tribal
160
43
Non-Tribal
160
Rural
Groups
Percentage
Low
Percentage
47.5%
14
8.75%
76
47.5%
19
11.87%
26.87%
93
38.12%
24
15%
66
37.5%
85
53.12%
15
9.37%
160
59
36.87%
81
50.62%
20
12.5%
Urban
160
46
28.75%
93
58.12%
21
13.12%
H.SES
160
61
38.12%
82
51.12%
17
13.7%
L.SES
160
53
33.12%
85
53.12%
22
13.75%
Overall
320
111
34.68%
172
53.75%
37
11.56%
The above Table No.-5.4 : Presents the percentage of students on inter personal
management of emotional intelligence of different sub-group based on gender, ethnicity,
residence and socio-economic status. Each sub-group has a total number of 160 (N =
160) and each group was scattered into three categories namely high, moderate and low
level. In the male group the number of sample is N = 160 and 70 students (43.75%) are
found high level, 76 students (47.5%) are found moderate level and 14 students (8.75%)
are found low level of interpersonal management of emotional intelligence.
As far as female group is concerned the result differs. A total number of 65 students
(40.62% are found high level, 76 students (47.5%) are found moderate level and 19
students (11.87%) are found low level of interpersonal management of emotional
intelligence.
Further the table reveals that overall tribal group (N = 160), 43 students (26.87%) are
found high level, 93 students (38.12%) are found moderate level and 24 students (15%)
are found low level of inter personal management of emotional intelligence.
On the other side non-tribal group (N = 160) 60 students (37.5%) are found high level,
level of inter personal management of emotional intelligence.
(50.62%) in moderate level and 20 students (12.5%) are found low level of inter personal
management of emotional intelligence.
As far as urban group (N = 160), 46 students (28.75%) are found high level, 93 students
(58.12%) are found moderate level and 21 students (13.12%) are found low level or
interpersonal management of emotional intelligence.
Further the table reveals that overall high socio-economic status group (N = 160) 61
and 17 students (10.625%) are found low level of interpersonal management of
On the other side low socio-economic status group (N = 160), 53 students (33.12%) are
found high level, 85 students (53.12%) are found moderate level and 22 students
(13.75%) are found low level of inter personal management of emotional intelligence.
In over all sample (N = 320) have 111 students (34.68%) are found high level, 172
students (53.75%) are found moderate level and 37 students (11.56%) are found low
level of interpersonal management of emotional intelligence.
SECTION-2

Adjustment: F-ratio
Source
A.Gender
SS
9361106.65
Df
1
MS
9361106.65
F
7.25
B.Ethnicity
9365932.39
9365932.39
7.25
C.Place of
residence
9367966.512
9367966.512
7.26
D. SES
9290933.59
9290933.59
7.195
AXB
9361418.792
6
9361418.792
6
7.2503
AXC
9362623.08
9362623.08
7.2513
AXD
9220310.502
5
9220310.502
5
7.1410
BXC
9298072.915
929072.915
7.2013
BXD
9132745.06
9132745.06
7.0732
CXD
9210531.168
9210531.168
7.1335
AXBXCXD
83682234.21
83682234.21
64.8115
With in
treatment
error
392513617.6
5
304
1291163.21
Table 3.1 presents the main effect, inter action effect and second order interaction of
gender, ethnicity, residence and socio economic status on adjustment.
Main Effects
The above omnibus presents the main effects of gender, ethnicity, residence and socio
economic status on adjustments. F value 7.25 of gender factor signifies that the main
effect of gender on adjustment is significant at 0.01 level. In other words both the gender
differs significantly on their level of adjustment (supp. study). The main effect of
ethnicity is significant at 0.01 level. Means students of both ethnicity namely (tribal and
non tribal) differ significantly on their level of adjustment (supportive studies).
The main effect of residence is found significant at 0.01 level of adjustment. In other
words students belongings to rural and urban areas differ significantly on their level of
adjustment (supportive studies).
The main effect of residence is found significant at .01 level on adjustment. In other
words students belonging to rural and urban areas differ significantly on their level of
adjustment. (Supportive studies).
The main effect of (D) socio economic status is also found significant at 0.01 level,
means students of high socio economic status and low socio economic status differ
significantly on their level of adjustment (supportive studies).
Interaction Effects
The interaction effect of AxB (gender X ethnicity) is found statistically significant at 0.01
level. In other words gender and ethnicity affects the level of adjustment among the
students.
The interaction effect of AxC (gender x residence) is F = 7.25 found statistically
significant at (p>0.01) level. It can be concluded that gender and residence jointly affects
the level of adjustment of students. The interactions effect of BXC (ethnicity x residence)
is found statistically significant. Means both jointly influence the level of students
adjustment. The joint effect of ethnicity and socio economic status is found significant at
0.01 level. The inter action effect of residence and socio economic status is also found
significant at 0.01 level. The interaction effect of gender and socio economic status is
also found significant at 0.01 level. In Conclusion it can be stated that both factor namely
gender and socio economic status jointly affects the level of adjustment of the students.
Second Order Interaction
The second order interaction of (AxBxCxD) gender, ethnicity, residence and socio
economic status is found significant at (p>0.01) level.
TABLE NO.-5.3
PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF ADJUSTMENT
Groups
High
Percentage
Overall
Male
Female
Tribal
Non-Tribal
Rural
Urban
H.SES
320
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
51
18
20
10
30
21
24
00
15.937%
11.25%
12.5%
6.25%
18.75%
13.125%
15%
00%
Moderat
e
150
78
79
89
70
73
84
43
Percentage
Low
Percentage
46.875%
48.75%
49.37%
55.625%
43.75%
45.625%
52.5%
26.875%
119
64
61
61
60
66
52
117
37.187%
40.0%
38.125%
38.125%
37.5%
41.25%
32.5%
73.125%
L.SES
160
38
23.75%
122
76.25%
00
00%
The above Table No.-5.3 : Presents the percentage level of adjustment of different subgroups based on male, female, tribal, non-tribal, rural, urban, high socio-economic
status, low socio-economic status and overall sample (N = 320). To fulfill the purpose the
adjustment scores splited into three categories namely high, moderate and low level of
adjustment. 51 students (15.937%) fall in high level, 50 students (46.875%) fall in
moderate level and 119 students (37.187%) fall in low level of adjustment.
Further the table reveals that over all male group (N = 160) has 18 students (11.25%) fall
in high level, 78 students (48.75%) fall in moderate level and 64 students (40%) fall in
low level of adjustment.
high level, 79 students (49.37%) fall in moderate level and 61 students (38.125%) fall in
low level of adjustment.
In the tribal group (N = 160), 10 students (6.25%) fall in high level, 89 students
(55.625%) fall in moderate level and 61 students (38.125%) fall in low level of
adjustment.
On the other side non-tribal group (N = 160), 30 students (18.75%) fall under high level,
70 students (43.75%) fall under moderate level and 60 students (37.5%)_ fall in low level
of adjustment.
Further the table reveals that over all rural group (N = 160) have 21 students (13.125%)
fall in high level, 73 students (45.625%) fall in moderate level and 66 students (41.25%)
fall in low level of adjustment.
On the other side urban group (N = 160) a total number of 24 students (15%) fall in high
level, 84 students (52.5%) fall in moderate level and 52 students (32.5%) fall in low level
of adjustment.
In the high socio-economic status group (N = 160), 0 (Zero) student (0%) fall in high
level, 43 students (26.875%) fall in moderate level and 117 (73.125%) fall in low level of
adjustment.
On the other side low socio-economic status group (N = 160), 38 students (23.75%) fall
under high level, 122 students (76.25%) fall under moderate level and 0 (zero) student
fall under low level of adjustment.
TABLE NO.-5.3.1
PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF HOME DIMENSION
(ADJUSTMENT)
N
High
Percentage
Moderat
e
Percentage
Low
Percentage
Male
160
00
00%
50
31.25%
110
68.75%
Female
160
00
00%
52
32.5%
108
67.5%
Tribal
160
00
00%
102
63.75%
58
36.25%
Non-Tribal
160
00
00%
60
37.50%
100
26.50%
Rural
160
00
00%
48
30%
112
70%
Urban
160
00
00%
58
36.25%
102
63.75%
H.SES
160
00
00%
01
0.625%
159
99.375%
L.SES
160
00
00%
107
66.87%
53
33.125%
Overall
320
00
00%
104
32.5%
216
67.5%
Groups
The above Table No.-5.3.1 : Presents the percentage of student on home dimension of
different sub-groups based on gender, ethnicity, residence and socio-economic status.
Each sub-group has a total number of 160 students (N = 160) and each group was
scattered into three categories namely high, moderate and low. In the male sub-group
the number of sample is N = 160 and 0 (Zero) student (0%) is found high level of home
adjustment. 50 (students (31.25%) are fall in moderate level and 110 students (68.75%)
are fall in low level of home adjustment.
As far as female group concerned the result differs. A total number of 52 students
(32.5%) are fall moderate level of home adjustment, 108 students (67.5%) students are
fall in low level of home adjustment and no student are found in high level of home
adjustment.
In the tribal group (N = 160), 0 (Zero) student (0%) fall in high level, 102 students
(63.75%) fall in moderate level and 58 students (36.25%) fall in low level of home
adjustment.
On the other side non-tribal group (N = 160), 0 (Zero) students fall in high level, 60
students (37.5%) fall in moderate level and 100 students (26.5%) fall in low level of
home adjustment.
In the rural groups (N = 160), 0 (Zero) students (0%) fall in high level, 48 students (30%)
fall in moderate level and 112 students (70%) fall in low level of home adjustment.
As far as urban group is concerned the results differs. A total number of 58 students
(36.25%) are found moderate level, 102 students (63.75%) are found low level and 0
(Zero) student found high level of home adjustment.

(Zero) student (0%) fall in high level, 1 student (0.625%) fall in moderate level and 159
students (99.375%) fall in low level of home adjustment.
On the other side low socio-economic status group (N = 160), 0 (Zero) student (0%) fall
in high level, 107 students (66.87%) fall in moderate level and 53 students (33.125%) fall
in low level of home adjustment.
In over all sample (N = 320) has 0 (Zero) student (0%) fall in high level, 104 students
(32.5%) fall in moderate level and 216 students (67.5%) fall in low level of adjustment.
TABLE NO.-5.3.2
PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF HEALTH DIMENSION
(ADJUSTMENT)
N
High
Percentage
Male
160
00
0%
Moderat
e
51
Female
160
01
0.625%
Tribal
160
00
Non-Tribal
160
Rural
Groups
Percentage
Low
Percentage
31.87%
109
68.12%
60
37.50%
99
61.875%
0%
56
35%
104
65%
01
0.625%
66
41.25%
94
58.75%
160
00
0%
60
37.50%
100
62.50%
Urban
160
01
0.625%
63
39.37%
94
60.62%
H.SES
160
00
0%
3.75%
154
96.25%
L.SES
160
01
0.625%
117
73.12%
43
26.875%
Overall
320
01
0.625%
125
39.062%
194
60.625%
The above Table No.-5.3.2 : Presents the percentage of students on health dimension
of adjustment of different sub-groups based on gender, ethnicity, residence and socioeconomic status. Each group has a total number of 160(N = 160) and each group was
scattered into three categories namely high, moderate and low level. In the male subgroup the number of sample is N = 160 and 0 (Zero) student (0%) is found high level of
health adjustment, 51 students (31.87%) are moderate level and 109 students (68.12%)
are found low level of health dimension (adjustment).
(37.5%) are found moderate level, 99 students (61.875%) are found low level of health
adjustment.
Further the table reveals that overall Tribal group (N = 160), Zero (0) student is found
high level, 56 students (35%) are found moderate level and 104 students (65%) are
found low level of health adjustment.
On the other side Non-Tribal group (N = 160), 0 (Zero) student is found high level, 66
level of health adjustment.
In the rural group (N = 160), 0 (Zero) student is found high level, 60 students (37.5%)
are found moderate level and 100 students (62.5%) are found low level of health
dimension (adjustment).
students (39.37%) are found moderate level, 97 student (60.62%) are found low level
and Zero (0) student (0%) is found high level of health adjustment. Further the table
reveals that over all high socio-economic status group (N = 160), Zero (0) student (0%)
is found high level, 6 students (3.75%) are found moderate level and 154% (96.25%) are
found low level of health dimension (adjustment).
On the other side low socio-economic status group (N = 160), 01 (One) student
(0.625%) fall in high level, 117 students (73.12%) fall in moderate level and 43 students
(26.875%) fall in low level of health dimension (adjustment).
Overall sample (N = 320) has 01 (One) student (0.625%) is found high level, 125
students (39.062%) fall in moderate level and 194 students (60.625%) fall in low level of
health dimension (adjustment).
TABLE NO.-5.3.3
PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF SOCIAL DIMENSION
(ADJUSTMENT)
N
High
Percentage
Male
160
00
0%
Moderat
e
77
Female
160
00
0%
Tribal
160
00
Non-Tribal
160
Rural
Groups
Percentage
Low
Percentage
48.12%
83
51.87%
79
49.37%
81
50.62%
0%
79
49.37%
81
50.62%
00
0%
79
49.37%
81
50.62%
160
00
0%
74
56.25%
86
53.75%
Urban
160
00
0%
81
50.62%
79
49.37%
H.SES
160
00
0%
11
6.875%
149
93.125%
L.SES
160
00
0%
154
90.62%
15
9.375%
Overall
320
00
0%
159
49.68%
161
50.31%
The above Table No.-5.3.3 : Presents the percentage of students on health dimension
of adjustment of different sub-groups. Based on gender, ethnicity, residence and socioeconomic status. Each sub-group has total number of 160 (N = 160) students and each
group is scattered into three categories namely high, moderate and low level. In the
male
group
the
number
of
sample
is
(N = 160) and Zero (0) student is found high level of social adjustment, 77 students
(48.12%) are found moderate level and 83 students (51.87%) are found low level of
social adjustment.
(79.377%) are found moderate level and Zero (0) student (0%) is found high level of
social dimension (adjustment).
Further the table reveals that overall tribal group (N = 160), Zero (0) student (0%) fall in
high level, 79 students (43.37%) fall in moderate level and 81 students (50.62%) are
found low level of social dimension (adjustment).
On the other side Non-tribal groups (N = 160), Zero (0) student (0%) is found high level,
level of social dimension (adjustment).
In the rural group (N = 160), Zero (0) student (0%) is found high level, 74 students
(46.25%) are found moderate level and 86 students (53.3%) are found low level of social
dimension (adjustment)
As far as urban group (N = 160) concerned the result differs. A total number of 81
students (50.62%) are found moderate level, 79 students (49.37%) are found low level of
social dimension and Zero (0) student (0%) is found high level of social dimension
(adjustment).
Further the table reveals that over all high socio-economic group (N = 160), Zero (0)
(0%) student is found high level, 11 students (6.875%) are found moderate level and 149
students (93.125%) are found low level of social adjustment.
As far as low socio-economic groups (N = 160) concerned the result differ. A total
number of 145 students (90.62%) fall in moderate level, 15 students (9.375%) fall in low
level and Zero (0) student (0%) fall in high level of social dimension of adjustment.
Overall sample (N = 320) has Zero (0) (0%) students is found high level, 149 students
social dimension of adjustment.
TABLE NO.-5.3.4
PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF EMOTIONAL DIMENSION OF
ADJUSTMENT
N
High
Percentage
Male
160
22
13.75%
Moderat
e
70
Female
160
26
16.25%
Tribal
160
30
Non-Tribal
160
Rural
Groups
Percentage
Low
Percentage
43.75%
68
42.50%
90
56.25%
44
27.50%
18.75%
76
47.50%
54
33.75%
28
17.50%
103
64.37%
29
18.12%
160
28
17.50%
77
48.12%
55
34.37%
Urban
160
30
18.75%
93
58.12%
37
23.12%
H.SES
160
04
2.50%
69
43.12%
87
55.62%
L.SES
160
30
18.75%
104
65%
26
16.25%
Overall
320
59
18.43%
167
52.187%
94
29.37%
The above Table No.-5.3.4 : Presents the percentage of students on emotional

dimension of adjustment of different sub-group based on gender, ethnicity, residence
and socio-economic status. Each sub-group has a total number of 160 students (N =
160) and each sub-group has a scattered into three categories namely high, moderate
and low level. In the male groups the number of sample is N = 160 and 22 students
students (42.5%) are found low level of emotional adjustment.
students (27.5%) are found low level of emotional dimension of adjustment.
Further the table reveals that overall tribal group (N = 160), 30 students (18.75%) are fall
in high level, 76 students (47.5%) are fall in moderate level and 54 students (33.75%)
are fall in low level of emotional dimension of adjustment.
On the other side Non-tribal group (N = 160) have 28 students (17.5%) are found high
level, 103 students (64.37%) are found in moderate level and 29 students (18.12%) are
found low level of emotional dimension of adjustment.
emotional dimension of adjustment.

As far as urban groups (N = 160), 30 students (18.75%) are found high level, 93
level of emotional dimension of adjustment.
and 87 students (55.62%) are found low level of emotional dimension of adjustment.
On the other side low socio-economic status group (N = 160), 30 students (18.75%) are
found high level, 104 students (65%) are found moderate level and 26 students
(16.25%) are found low level of emotional dimension of adjustment.
Overall sample (N = 320) have 59 students (18.43%) are found high level, 169 students
emotional dimension of adjustment.
SECTION-3

Anxiety: F-ratio
Source
A
SS
15117.74
Df
1
MS
15117.74
F
6.241
34840.73
34840.73
14.38
658.37
658.37
< 0.27
7417.001
717.001
< 0.296
AB
15482.24
15482.24
6.39
AC
450496.985
450496.985
185.99
AD
252739.046
252736.046
104.35
BC
480732.17
480732.17
198.47
BD
132248.17
132248.17
54.60
CD
480732.17
480732.17
198.47
ABCD
2727.42
2727.42
1.126
With in
treatment
error
736330.64
304
2422.14
Table 2.1:
The above omnibus shows the main effect, interaction effect and second order interaction
of gender, socio- economic status, ethnicity and residence on anxiety.
Main effect
The main effect of gender on anxiety is found significant, it is clear from the F value
6.241. This means both gender (male and female) defer significantly on their anxiety
level at 0.05 level significance. (Supportive studies)
The main effect of B (ethnicity) is found significant at 0.01 levels. In other words
students of both ethnicities namely tribal and non-tribal differ significantly on their
anxiety level (supportive studies).
The main effect of residence and socio economic status on anxiety is found insignificant.
It can be said that students belonging to urban and rural areas and students belonging to
high socio economic status and low socio economic status not significantly differ on their
anxiety level (supportive studies).
Interaction effects
The interaction effect gender X ethnicity on anxiety is found significant. It is evident
from the F value 6.39. In other words gender and ethnicity jointly affects the anxiety level
of students.
Further the table reveals that the interaction effect of gender X residence jointly influence
the level of anxiety of students. The interaction effect of A x D (gender X socio economic
status) is found significant at 0.01 level. The interaction effect of B x C (ethnicity X
residence) is founds statistically significant at 0.01 level. The interaction effect of B x D
(ethnicity X socio economic status) is found significant at 0.01 level. The joint effect of C
x D (residence X socio economic status) is found statistically significant at 0.01 level. In
other words residence and socio economic status jointly influence the level of anxiety of
students.
Second order interaction
It is clear evident from the above table that the second order interaction AxBxCxD
(gender X ethenicity X residence X socio economic status) is not significant. In
conclusion it can be stated that all the four factors namely (gender, ethnicity, residence
and socio economic status) not jointly affects the anxiety level of students.
TABLE NO.-6
PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF ANXIETY
N
High
Percentage
Male
160
21
13.125%
Moderat
e
77
Female
160
20
12.50%
Tribal
160
00
Non-Tribal
160
Rural
Groups
Percentage
Low
Percentage
58.12%
62
38.75%
70
43.75%
70
43.75%
0%
60
37.5%
100
62.5%
38
23.75%
90
56.25%
32
29%
160
16
10%
72
45%
72
45%
Urban
160
23
14.375%
75
46.875%
62
38.75%
H.SES
160
00
0%
106
66.25%
54
33.75%
L.SES
160
40
25%
42
26.25%
78
48.75%
Overall
320
40
12.5%
148
46.25%
132
41.25%
The above Table No.-6 : Presents the level of Anxiety of different sub-groups based on
male, female, tribal, non-tribal, rural, urban, high socio-economic status, low socioeconomic status and over all sample (N = 320). To fulfill the purpose the anxiety scores
splied into three categories namely high, moderate and low level of Anxiety. 40 students
(12.5%) fall in high level, 148 students (46.25%) fall in moderate level and 132 students
(41.25%) fall in low level of anxiety.
Further the table reveals that over all male group (N = 160) has 21 students (13.125%)
fall in high level, 77 students (58.12%) fall in moderate level and 62 students (38.75%)
fall in low level of anxiety.
On the other side female group (N = 160) total number of 20 students (12.5%) fall in high
level, 70 students (43.75%) fall in moderate level and 70 students (43.75%) fall in low
level of Anxiety.
In the tribal group (N = 160) Zero (0) student (0%) fall in high level, 60 students (37.5%)
fall in moderate level and 100 students (62.5%) fall in low level of Anxiety.
On the other side Non-tribal group (N = 160) total number of 38 students (23.75%) fall in
high level, 90 students (56.25%) fall in moderate level and 32 students (20%) fall in low
level of Anxiety.
Further the rural group (N = 160), 16 students (10%) fall in high level, 72 students (45%)
fall in moderate level and 72 students (45%) fall in low level of Anxiety.
On the other side urban group (N = 160), total number of 23 students (14.375%) fall in
moderate level, 75 students (48.875%) fall in moderate level and 62 students (38.75%)
fall in low level of Anxiety.
In the high socio-economic status group (N = 160) has Zero (0) students (0%) fall in high
level, 106 students (66.25%) fall in moderate level, 54 students (33.75%) fall in low level
of Anxiety.
On the other side low socio-economic status group (N = 160), total number of 40
students (25%) fall in high level, 42 students (26.25%) fall in moderate level and 78
(48.75%) fall in low level of Anxiety.
Overall sample (N = 320) have 40 students (12.5%) are found high level, 148
students (46.25%) are found moderate level and 132 students are found low level of
Anxiety.
SECTION-4
This section presents the inter correlation of emotional intelligence, adjustment and
anxiety on the over all sample N= 320.
Table 4.1 Presents the inter correlation of emotional intelligence, adjustment and anxiety.
Variables
Adjustment
Anxiety
Adjustment
-0.627*
Emotional
intelligence
0.033
-0.021
Anxiety
Emotional intelligence
It is clear from the table 4.1 adjustment and anxiety significantly and negatively
correlated with each other. In other words lower the anxiety higher the adjustment or vice
versa. Further the table reveals relationship between adjustment and emotional
intelligence and it is found positive but the relationship is not significant. The correlation
between anxiety and emotional intelligence is found negative but this relationship is not
significant. The relationship between emotional intelligence and adjustment; emotional
intelligence and anxiety found insignificant, it may be occurred due to the chance factor.

Update Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Update Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter-4

Analysis Of the Obtain Data

The present study is designed and conducted to study emotional intelligence,

The level of emotional intelligence, anxiety and adjustment will not

The non-tribal students will not differ significantly in emotional

Female students will not differ significantly in emotional

Urban students will not differ significantly in emotional intelligence,

The students of high socio-economic status will not differ

Emotional intelligence will have a significant positive correlation

section-2 analysis of anxiety, section-3 analysis of adjustment and section-4

Table 1.1: presenting the main effect, interaction

TABLE No. 5.1

TABLE No. 5.2

TABLE No. 5.3

TABLE No. 5.4

Table 3.1: presenting the main effect, interaction

(Zero) student found high level of home adjustment.

The above Table No.-5.3.4 : Presents the percentage of students on emotional

emotional dimension of adjustment.

Table 2.1: presenting the main effect, interaction

You might also like