a study on the quality of life of elderly widows
TRANSCRIPT
A STUDY ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF ELDERLY WIDOWS
FREQUENCY TABLES - Socio Demographic Data
TABLE 1: Distribution of respondents according by their social status.
S. No. Social Status No. of Respondents
( n=60 )
Percentage
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Age
60 - 65
66 – 70
71 – 75
76 – 80
Above 81
Gender
Female
Marital Status
Widow
Educational Qualification
Primary
Middle
High school
Illiterate
27
14
8
9
2
60
60
8
7
6
39
45.0
23.3
13.3
15.0
3.3
100.0
100.0
13.3
11.7
10.0
65.0
It is noted from the above table that majority of the respondents (45%) are in the age group of 60 – 65 years. 23% of the respondents are in the age group 66 – 70 years and 15% of the respondents are in the age group 76 – 80 years. 13.3% of the respondents are in the age group of 71 – 75 and very few respondents (3.3%) are above 81 years of age.All the respondents (100%) are widows.
One third of the respondents (65%) are illiterate. 13% of the respondents are qualified up to the primary level. 11.7% of the respondents are qualified up to middle school level. 10% of the respondents have completed their high school.
TABLE 2: Distribution of respondents by their family status.
S. No. Family Status No. of Respondents
( n=60 )
Percentage
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
Nuclear
Joint family
No. of years lived with spouse
20 - 30
31 - 40
41 - 50
51 - 60
No. of children
1 - 2
3 - 4
None
No. of Dependents
1 - 3
4 - 6
None
50
10
11
33
13
3
33
16
11
38
11
11
83.3
16.7
18.3
55.0
21.7
5.0
55.0
26.7
18.3
63.3
18.3
18.3
A majority of the respondents (83.3%) of the respondents live in nuclear families. A few of the respondents (16.7%) live in joint families.
More than half of the respondents (55%) lived with their spouse for 31 – 40 years. 21.7% of the respondents have lived with their spouse for 41 – 50 years. 18.3% of the respondents have lived together for 20 – 30 years. Very few of the respondents (5%) have lived together for 51 – 60 years.
Majority of the respondents have (55%) have 1 – 2 children. 26.7% of the respondents have 3 – 4 children. And the remaining 18.3% don’t have children.
Most of the respondents (63.3%) have 1 - 3 dependents. 18.6% of the respondents have 4 – 6 dependents and 18.3% of the respondents have no dependents.
TABLE 3: Distribution of respondents by their living arrangements
S. No. Living arrangements No. of Respondents
( n=60 )
Percentage
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
Domicile
Rural
Urban
Type of house
Thatched
Tiled
Concrete
Ownership of house
Rented
Own
Facilities
Toilet
Yes
No
Water
Yes
No
Electricity
Yes
No
31
29
25
26
9
3
57
6
54
22
38
48
12
51.7
48.3
41.7
43.3
15.0
5.0
95.0
10.0
90.0
36.7
63.3
80.0
20.0
From the above table, it is understood that more than half of the respondents (51.7%) hail from rural areas and 48.3% of them hail from urban areas.
Regarding the type of house they live in, majority of the respondents (43.3%) live in tiled houses, 41.7% of them live in thatched houses and 15% of the respondents live in concrete houses.
Almost all the respondents (95%) have their own houses and the remaining 5% of the respondents live in rented houses.
Most of the respondents (90%) don’t have toilet facilities in their houses. One third of the respondents (63.3%) don’t have water facilities. However majority of the respondents (80%) have electricity in their houses.
TABLE 4: Distribution of respondents by their economic status
S. No. Economic status No. of Respondents
( n=60 )
Percentage
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
Occupation
Coolie
Agriculture
Not working
Present Employment status
Working
Not working
Monthly Income
100 - 1000
1001 - 2000
2001 - 3000
Monthly Expenditure
1000 - 2000
56
3
1
16
44
45
14
1
44
93.3
5.0
1.7
26.7
73.3
75.0
23.3
1.7
73.3
2.
3.
4.
5.
2001 - 3000
3001 - 4000
4001 - 5000
Above 5000
12
1
2
1
20.0
1.7
3.3
1.7
From the above table it is understood that a vast majority of the respondents (93.3%) of the respondents are coolies and a few of the respondents (5%) are employed in agriculture and 1.7% of the respondents are not working.
It is evident from the table that nearly three fourths of the respondents (73.3%) are not working and 26.7% of them are working at present.
Regarding their monthly income, majority of the respondents (75%) of the respondents earn less than Rs.1000. 23.3% of the respondents earn between Rs.1000 to Rs.2000 and 1.7% of the respondents earn between Rs.2000 to Rs.3000.
Regarding their monthly expenditure, majority of the respondents (73.3%) of the respondents spend less than Rs.2000. 20% of the respondents spend between Rs.2000 to Rs.3000. 3.3%% of the respondents spend between Rs.4000 to Rs.5000 and 1.7% of the respondents spend Rs.3000 to Rs.4000 and the remaining 1.7% of the respondents spend above Rs.5000 .
TABLE 4: Distribution of respondents by their economic status
S. No. Economic status No. of Respondents
( n=60 )
Percentage
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
Monthly Savings
50
100
Below 500
Financial Problems
Yes
No
8
34
18
51
9
13.3
56.7
30.0
85.0
15.0
More than half of the respondents 56.7% save Rs.100 per month. 30% of the respondents save below Rs.500 and 13.3% of the respondents save Rs.50
A vast majority of the respondents 85% have financial problems and 15% of the respondents don’t have financial problems.
TABLE 5: Distribution of respondents by their Health Conditions
S. No. Health Conditions No. of Respondents
( n=60 )
Percentage
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
Present Health condition
Worse
Better
Good
Very Good
Health problems
Hard of Hearing
Yes
No
11
44
1
4
31
29
18.3
73.3
1.7
6.7
51.7
48.3
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
Heart Disease
Yes
No
Stomach pain
Yes
No
Problem in vision
Yes
No
Duration of their illness
6 months
6 months - 1 year
1.5 - 2 years
Above 2 years
Health problems
Difficulty in breathing
Burning of the heart
Tiredness
Joint pain
Psychological problems
Sleeplessness
Yes
No
Nightmares
Yes
No
19
41
34
26
45
15
23
20
14
3
36
8
15
1
29
31
11
49
31.7
68.3
56.7
43.3
75.0
25.0
38.3
33.3
23.3
5.0
60.0
13.3
25.0
1.7
48.3
51.7
18.3
81.7
3.
4.
5.
Worry about health
Yes
No
Memory loss
Yes
No
Worry about the future
Yes
No
46
14
40
20
43
17
76.7
23.3
66.7
33.3
71.7
28.3
From the above table it is understood that 73.3% of the respondents have better health.18.3% of the respondents’ health condition is worse.6.7% of the respondents are in very good health and the remaining 1.7% of the respondents are in good health.
From the above table we infer that 51.75% of the respondents have hearing problems.68.3% of the respondents don’t have heart disease.56.7% of the respondents have stomach problems and 75% of the respondents have problems in vision.
Regarding the duration of their illness majority of their respondents 38.3% have suffered for six months. 33.3% of respondents suffered from illness for a period of six months to one year.23.3% of the respondents suffered from illness 1.5 years to 2 years and very few of the respondents 5% suffered for more than 2 years.
Regarding other health problems majority of the respondents 60% have difficulty in breathing, 25% of the respondents have tiredness and 13.3% of the respondents suffer from burning of the heart and 1.7% of the respondents have joint pain.
Regarding psychological problems more than half of the respondents 51.7% don’t suffer from sleeplessness. 81.7% don’t have nightmares.Majority of the respondents 76.7% have worries about their health. Two thirds of the respondents 66.7% suffer from memory loss and 71.7% are worried about the future.
TABLE 6: Distribution of respondents by their Leisure time
S. No. Leisure time No. of Respondents
( n=60 )
Percentage
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Leisure time
Full day
Few hours
No free time
Leisure time
Household work
Yes
No
Gardening
Yes
No
Watching TV
Yes
No
Agriculture
Yes
No
Reading
Yes
No
Social Service
Yes
No
40
18
2
47
13
31
29
45
15
3
57
0
60
0
60
66.7
30.0
3.3
78.3
21.7
51.7
48.3
75.0
25.0
5.0
95.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
7. Simply sitting and thinking
Yes
No
59
1
98.3
1.7
From the above table it is inferred that majority of the respondents 66.7% have leisure time the whole day.30% of the respondents have a few hours of leisure time and 3.3% of them have no free time.
Regarding how they spend their leisure time 78.3% of the respondents do house hold work.51.7% do gardening, most of the respondents 75% watch television. A vast majority of them 98.3% sit and think and 5% do agriculture. None of the respondents do reading or social service.
TABLE 7: Distribution of respondents by their Religion Status
S. No. Religion Status No. of Respondents
( n=60 )
Percentage
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
Opinion on Religion
It is important
No use
Not much important
Belief in a higher power
Yes
No
Belief in spirituality
Yes
No
Directed by spirituality
Yes
No
1
57
2
58
2
56
4
60
0
1.7
95.0
3.3
96.7
3.3
93.3
6.7
100.0
0.0
From the above table it is understood that almost all the respondents 95% believe that religion is of no use and 3.3% of the respondents feel that it is not much important and 1.7% of them feel that religion is important.
96.7% of the respondents believe in a higher power or force. 98.3% of them believe in god and 93.3% of them believe in spirituality.
WHOQOL
Dimension No. of respondents Percentage
General quality of life
Low
Moderate
High
Physical Domain
Low
Moderate
High
Psychological domain
Low
Moderate
High
Social relationship domain
Low
Moderate
High
Environmental domain
Low
Moderate
High
Overall Total
45
14
1
16
41
3
26
32
2
13
34
13
24
32
4
75.0
23.3
1.7
26.7
68.3
5.0
43.3
53.3
3.3
21.7
56.7
21.7
40.0
53.3
6.7
Low
Moderate
High
28
27
5
46.7
45.0
8.3
From the above table the distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of general quality of life, three fourths of the respondents (75%) have a low level of quality of life. 23.3% have a moderate level and 1.7% perceive a high level of general quality of life.
The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of physical domain, 26.6% of the respondents have a low level 68.3% have a moderate level and only 5% of them have a high level of physical domain.
The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of psychological domain, 43.3% of the respondents have a low level 53.3% have a moderate level and only 3.3% of them have a high level of physical domain.
The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of social relationship domain, 21.7% of the respondents have a low level 56.7% have a moderate level and only 21.7% of them have a high level of social relationship domain.
The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of environmental domain, 40.0% of the respondents have a low level 53.3% have a moderate level and only 6.7% of them have a high level of environmental domain.
The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of overall activity, 46.7% of the respondents have a low level 45% have a moderate level and only 8.3% of them have a high level of overall activity.
ACTIVITY RATING SCALE
Dimension No. of respondents Percentage
Physical Activity
Low
Moderate
High
Psychological Activity
Low
Moderate
High
Social Activity
Low
Moderate
High
Overall Total
Low
Moderate
High
12
39
9
16
41
3
5
40
15
17
36
7
20.0
65.0
15.0
26.7
68.3
5.0
8.3
66.7
25.0
28.3
60.0
11.7
From the above table the distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of physical domain, 20% of the respondents have a low level 65% have a moderate level and only 15% of them have a high level of physical domain.
The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of psychological activity, 26.7% of the respondents have a low level 68.3% have a moderate level and only 5% of them have a high level of psychological activity.
The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of social activity, 8.3% of the respondents have a low level 66.7% have a moderate level and 25% of them have a high level of social activity.
The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of overall activity, 28.3% of the respondents have a low level 60% have a moderate level and11% of them have a high level of overall activity.
One Way Analysis of variance among Educational Qualification with the Various dimensions of Quality of Life
Various measures of
Quality of Life SS MS df X Statistical Inference
General quality of life
Between Groups
Within Groups
Physical Domain
Between Groups
Within Groups
Psychological domain
Between Groups
Within Groups
Social relationship domain
Between Groups
Within Groups
4.028
8.155
1.666
17.984
3.705
15.278
8.555
25.778
1.343
.146
.555
.321
1.235
.273
2.852
.460
3
56
3
56
3
56
3
56
G1=1.88
G2=1.14
G3=1.17
G4=1.10
G1=2.00
G2=1.43
G3=1.83
G4=1.59
G1=1.88
G2=1.29
G3=2.00
G4=1.36
G1=2.63
G2=2.29
G3=1.50
F=9.220
P<0.05
Significant
F=1.730
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=4.527
P<0.05
Significant
F=6.195
P<0.05
Environmental domain
Between Groups
Within Groups
Overall Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
6.408
16.526
8.443
16.540
2.136
.295
2.814
.295
3
56
3
56
G4=1.64
G1=2.25
G2=1.00
G3=1.67
G4=1.46
G1=2.38
G2=1.14
G3=1.83
G4=1.36
Significant
F=7.138
P<0.05
Significant
F=9.529
P<0.05
Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is a significance difference between education qualification and the dimensions of quality of life like General quality of life, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and the Overall except physical domain.
One Way Analysis of variance among Educational Qualification with the Various dimensions of Activity Rating Scale
Various measures of
Activity Rating Scale
SS MS df X Statistical Inference
Physical Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
Psychological Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
Social Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
Overall Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
.685
20.165
470
15.714
.
.692
16.291
.552
23.631
.228
.360
.157
.281
.231
.291
.184
.422
3
56
3
56
3
56
3
56
G1=1.75
G2=2.14
G3=1.83
G4=1.97
G1=1.63
G2=1.71
G3=1.67
G4=1.85
G1=2.25
G2=2.43
G3=2.00
G4=2.15
G1=1.63
G2=2.00
G3=1.83
G4=1.77
F=.634
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=.558
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=.793
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=.436
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between education qualification and all the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Physical Activity, Psychological Activity, Social Activity and the Overall.
One Way Analysis of variance among Type of House with the various dimensions of Quality of Life
Various measures of
Quality of Life SS MS df X Statistical Inference
General quality
of life
Between Groups
Within Groups
Physical Domain
Between Groups
Within Groups
Psychological
domain
Between Groups
Within Groups
Social
relationship
domain
Between Groups
.012
12.171
1.205
18.445
.021
18.962
.455
.006
.214
.603
.324
.011
.333
.227
2
57
2
57
2
57
2
G1=1.20
G2=1.23
G3=1.22
G1=1.76
G2=1.65
G3=1.33
G1=1.48
G2=1.50
G3=1.44
G1=1.92
G2=1.81
G3=1.67
F=.029
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=1.863
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=.032
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=.383
P>0.05
Within Groups
Environmental
domain
Between Groups
Within Groups
Overall Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
33.878
.051
22.882
.060
24.924
.594
.026
.401
.030
.437
57
2
57
2
57
G1=1.56
G2=1.50
G3=1.56
G1=1.52
G2=1.54
G3=1.44
Not Significant
F=.064
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=.068
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Type of House and all the dimensions of quality of life like General quality of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and the Overall.
One Way Analysis of variance among Type of House with the Various dimensions of Activity Rating Scale
Various measures of
Activity Rating Scale
SS MS df X Statistical Inference
Physical Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
Psychological Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
Social Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
Overall Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
.736
20.114
.428
15.755
.029
16.954
.770
23.414
.368
.353
.214
.276
.015
.279
.385
.411
2
57
2
57
2
57
2
57
G1=2.08
G2=1.85
G3=1.89
G1=1.88
G2=1.73
G3=1.67
G1=2.16
G2=2.19
G3=2.22
G1=1.88
G2=1.65
G3=1.89
F=1.044
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=.774
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=.049
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=.937
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Type of House and all the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Physical Activity, Psychological Activity, Social Activity and the Overall.
One Way Analysis of variance among Religion with the Various dimensions of Quality of Life
Various measures of
Quality of Life SS MS df X Statistical Inference
General quality of life
Between Groups
Within Groups
Physical Domain
Between Groups
Within Groups
Psychological domain
Between Groups
Within Groups
Social relationship domain
Between Groups
Within Groups
Environmental domain
Between Groups
Within Groups
1.938
10.246
.387
19.263
.773
18.211
.956
33.377
.688
22.246
.969
.180
.193
.338
.386
.319
.478
.586
.344
.390
2
57
2
57
2
57
2
57
2
57
G1=2.00
G2=1.18
G3=2.00
G1=2.00
G2=1.63
G3=2.00
G1=1.00
G2=1.47
G3=2.00
G1=1.00
G2=1.86
G3=1.50
G1=2.00
G2=1.51
G3=2.00
F=5.390
P<0.05
Significant
F=.572
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=1.209
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=.816
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=.881
P>0.05
Not Significant
Overall Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
.738
24.246
.369
.425
2
57G1=2.00
G2=1.49
G3=2.00
F=.867
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Religion and the dimensions of quality of life like Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and the Overall except General quality of life.
One Way Analysis of variance among Religion with the Various dimensions of Activity Rating Scale
Various measures of
Activity Rating Scale
SS MS df X Statistical Inference
Physical Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
Psychological Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
Social Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
Overall Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
1.131
19.719
1.122
15.061
2.448
14.535
.148
24.035
.565
.346
.561
.264
1.224
.255
.074
.422
2
57
2
57
2
57
2
57
G1=3.00
G2=1.93
G3=2.00
G1=2.00
G2=1.75
G3=2.50
G1=1.00
G2=2.23
G3=1.50
G1=2.00
G2=1.77
G3=2.00
F=1.634
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=2.123
P>0.05
Not Significant
F=4.800
P<0.05
Significant
F=.176
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Religion and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Physical Activity, Psychological Activity and the Overall except the Social Activity.
Inter Correlation Matrix between Various measures of Quality of Life
General quality of
Physical Domain
Psychological domain
Social relationship
Environmental domain
Overall
life domain Total
General quality of life
1
Physical Domain
.517** 1
Psychological domain
.663** .542** 1
Social relationship domain
.361** .206 .216 1
Environmental domain
.624** .495** .578** .371** 1
Overall Total
.813** .729** .817** .534** .852** 1
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
There is a significant relationship between the dimensions of Quality of life such as General quality of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and the Overall Quality of life.
Inter Correlation Matrix between Various measures of Activity Rating Scale
Physical Psychological Social Activity Rating
Activity Activity Activity Scale Overall
Physical Activity 1
Psychological Activity
.453** 1
Social Activity .312* -.036 1
Activity Rating Scale Overall Total
.858** .541** .685** 1
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
There is a significant relationship between the dimensions of Physical activity, psychological activity, social activity and overall activity.
‘t” between the Domicile of the Respondents and the Dimensions of Quality of Life
Variables Domicile Mean SD df Statistical
Inference
General quality of life Rural
Urban
1.26
1.17
.445
.468
58 t = .727
P>0.05
Not Significant
Physical Domain Rural
Urban
1.61
.1.69
.558
.604
58 t = -.512
P>0.05
Not Significant
Psychological Domain Rural
Urban
1.48
1.48
.508
.634
58 t = -.008
P>0.05
Not Significant
Social Relationship Domain
Rural
Urban
1.97
1.69
.706
.806
58 t = 1.423
P>0.05
Not Significant
Environmental Domain
Rural
Urban
1.58
1.48
.620
.634
58 t = .604
P>0.05
Not Significant
Overall Total Rural
Urban
1.55
1.48
.675
.634
58 t = .388
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Domicile of the respondents and the dimensions of quality of life like General quality of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and the Overall.
t” between the Domicile of the Respondents and the Dimensions of Activity Rating Scale
Variables Domicile Mean SD df Statistical
Inference
Physical Activity Rural
Urban
2.06
1.83
.629
.539
58 t = 1.561
P>0.05
Not Significant
Psychological Activity Rural
Urban
1.84
1.72
.454
.591
58 t =.845
P>0.05
Not Significant
Social Activity Rural
Urban
2.32
2.03
.475
.566
58 t = 2.141
P<0.05
Significant
Activity Rating Scale Overall Total
Rural
Urban
1.90
1.66
.700
.553
58 t = 1.516
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Domicile and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Physical Activity, Psychological Activity and the Overall except the Social Activity.
‘t” between the Age of the Respondents and the Dimensions of Quality of Life
Variables Age Mean SD df Statistical Inference
General quality of life Below 70
Above 70
1.24
1.10
.489
.375
58 t = .679
P>0.05
Not Significant
Physical Domain Below 70
Above 70
1.71
1.53
.559
.612
58 t =1.133
P>0.05
Not Significant
Psychological Domain Below 70
Above 70
1.51
1.42
.597
.507
58 t =.576
P>0.05
Not Significant
Social Relationship Domain
Below 70
Above 70
1.80
1.89
.782
.737
58 t = -.421
P>0.05
Not Significant
Environmental Domain
Below 70
Above 70
1.56
1.47
.673
.513
58 t = .501
P>0.05
Not Significant
Overall Total Below 70
Above 70
1.56
1.42
.709
.507
58 t = .772
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Age of the respondents and the dimensions of quality of life like General quality of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and the Overall.
‘t’ between the Age of the Respondents and the Dimensions of Activity Rating Scale
Variables Age Mean SD df Statistical Inference
Physical Activity Below 70
Above 70
1.85
2.16
.573
.602
58 t = -1.883
P>0.05
Not Significant
Psychological Activity Below 70
Above 70
1.68
2.00
.567
.333
58 t = -2.256
P<0.05
Significant
Social Activity Below 70
Above 70
2.12
2.32
.510
.582
58 t = -1.310
P>0.05
Not Significant
Activity Rating Scale Overall Total
Below 70
Above 70
1.66
2.05
.617
.621
58 t = -2.297
P<0.05
Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is a significance difference between age of the respondents and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Psychological activity and the overall.
There is no significance difference between Age and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Physical Activity and the Social Activity.
‘t’ between the Property of the Respondents and the Dimensions of Quality of Life
Variables Property Mean SD df Statistical Inference
General quality of life Rented
Own
1.00
1.23
.000
.464
58 t = -.845
P>0.05
Not Significant
Physical Domain Rented
Own
1.33
1.67
.577
.577
58 t = -.975
P>0.05
Not Significant
Psychological Domain Rented
Own
1.67
1.47
.577
.570
58 t = .571
P>0.05
Not Significant
Social Relationship Domain
Rented
Own
1.33
1.86
.577
.766
58 t = -1.168
P>0.05
Not Significant
Environmental Domain
Rented
Own
1.33
1.54
.577
.629
58 t = -.567
P>0.05
Not Significant
Overall Total Rented
Own
1.67
1.51
.577
.658
58 t = .407
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Property of the respondents and the dimensions of quality of life like General quality of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and the Overall.
‘t’ between the Property of the Respondents and the Dimensions of Activity Rating Scale
Variables Property Mean SD df Statistical Inference
Physical Activity Rented
Own
2.00
1.95
.000
.610
58 t =.148
P>0.05
Not Significant
Psychological Activity Rented
Own
1.67
1.79
.577
.526
58 t = -.393
P>0.05
Not Significant
Social Activity Rented
Own
2.00
2.19
.000
.549
58 t = -.604
P>0.05
Not Significant
Activity Rating Scale Overall Total
Rented
Own
1.67
1.79
.577
.647
58 t = -.321
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Property and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Physical Activity, Psychological Activity, Social Activity and the Overall.
Association between the occupation of the respondents and the dimensions of Quality of Life
Dimensions Coolie
(n:56)
Agriculture
(n:3)
Not Working
(n:1)
df Statistical Inference
General quality of life
Low
Moderate
High
Physical Domain
Low
Moderate
High
Psychological domain
Low
Moderate
High
Social relationship domain
Low
Moderate
High
Environmental domain
Low
Moderate
45
10
1
23
30
3
30
24
2
21
23
12
30
22
4
2
1
0
1
2
0
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
4
4
4
4
4
X2= .747
P>0.05
Not Significant
X2= 1.127
P>0.05
Not Significant
X2= 1.092
P>0.05
Not Significant
X2= 1.878
P>0.05
Not Significant
X2= 1.860
P>0.05
Not Significant
X2= 2.207
High
Overall Total
Low
Moderate
High
32
19
5
1
2
0
1
0
0
4
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is no significant association between the Occupation of the respondents and the dimensions of quality of life like General quality of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and the Overall.
Association between the occupation of the respondents and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale
Dimensions Coolie Agriculture Not Working df Statistical
(n: )
(n: ) (n: )
Inference
Physical Activity
Low
Moderate
High
Psychological Activity
Low
Moderate
High
Social Activity
Low
Moderate
High
Overall Total
Low
Moderate
High
11
38
7
15
38
3
3
39
14
19
31
6
0
1
2
0
3
0
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
4
4
4
X2= 10.709
P<0.05
Significant
X2=4.157
P>0.05
Not Significant
X2=4.443
P>0.05
Not Significant
X2=4.332
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is a significant association between Occupation of the respondents and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like physical activity and there is no significant association between Occupation of the respondents and the other dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Psychological Activity, Social Activity and the Overall.
Association between the Health condition of the respondents and the dimensions of Quality of Life
Dimensions Worse Better Good Very df Statistical
(n:11 )
(n:44 ) (n: 1)
Good
(n:4 )
Inference
General quality of life
Low
Moderate
High
Physical Domain
Low
Moderate
High
Psychological domain
Low
Moderate
High
Social relationship domain
Low
Moderate
High
Environmental domain
Low
Moderate
11
0
0
6
5
0
9
2
0
6
4
1
9
2
34
9
1
17
24
3
22
20
2
15
19
10
20
21
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
4
0
1
3
0
2
0
2
2
1
6
6
6
6
6
X2=5.950
P>0.05
Not Significant
X2=6.400
P>0.05
Not Significant
X2=6.479
P>0.05
Not Significant
X2=6.658
P>0.05
Not Significant
X2=8.011
P>0.05
Not Significant
High
Overall Total
Low
Moderate
High
0
9
2
0
3
22
18
4
0
1
0
0
1
2
1
1
6
X2=6.092
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is no significant association between Health condition of the respondents and the dimensions of quality of life like General quality of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and the Overall.
Association between the Health condition of the respondents and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale
Dimensions Worse
(n:11 )
Better
(n:44 )
Good
(n: 1)
Very Good
(n:4 )
df Statistical Inference
Physical Activity
Low
Moderate
High
Psychological Activity
Low
Moderate
High
Social Activity
1
6
4
1
9
1
10
30
4
13
29
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
3
0
2
2
0
6
6
X2=11.821
P<0.05
Significant
X2=3.805
P>0.05
Not Significant
Low
Moderate
High
Overall Total
Low
Moderate
High
1
5
5
2
6
3
3
33
8
16
25
3
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
1
2
2
0
6
6
X2=7.179
P>0.05
Not Significant
X2=12.478
P<0.05
Significant
From the above table it is inferred that there is a significant association between the Health condition of the respondents and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like physical activity and overall.
There is no significant association between Health condition of the respondents and the other dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Psychological Activity and Social Activity
Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between age of the respondents and the dimensions of Quality of Life
Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference
General quality of life
Physical Domain
Psychological domain
Social relationship domain
Environmental domain
Overall Total
-.157
-.122
-.149
-.004
-.209
-.180
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the table it is understood that there is no significant relationship between the age of the respondents and the various dimensions of quality of life such as General quality of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and overall quality of life.
Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between age of the respondents and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale
Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference
Physical Activity
Psychological Activity
Social Activity
Overall Total
.149
.257
.079
.203
P>0.05
Not Significant
P<0.05
Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the table we infer that as age increases, psychological activity too increases. There is no significant relationship between the age of the respondents and the various dimensions of physical activity, social activity and overall activity.
Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Monthly Expenditure of the respondents and the dimensions of Quality of Life
Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference
General quality of life
Physical Domain
Psychological domain
Social relationship domain
Environmental domain
Overall Total
-.030
-.018
-.018
-.096
.023
-.028
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the table it is understood that there is no significant relationship between the monthly expenditure of the respondents and the various dimensions of quality of life such as General quality of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and overall quality of life.
Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Monthly Expenditure of the respondents and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale
Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference
Physical Activity
Psychological Activity
Social Activity
Overall Total
.048
-.097
.197
.099
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
There is no significant relationship between the monthly expenditure of the respondents and the various dimensions of physical activity, psychological activity, social activity and overall activity.
Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Number of Children of the respondents and the dimensions of Quality of Life
Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference
General quality of life
Physical Domain
Psychological domain
Social relationship domain
Environmental domain
Overall Total
-.010
.031
.000
.021
-.003
.010
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the table it is understood that there is no significant relationship between the number of children of the respondents and the various dimensions of quality of life such as General quality of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and overall quality of life.
Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Number of Children of the respondents and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale
Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference
Physical Activity
Psychological Activity
Social Activity
Overall Total
-.218
.066
-.244
-.228
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
There is no significant relationship between the number of children of the respondents and the various dimensions of physical activity, psychological activity, social activity and overall activity.
Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Family Size of the respondents and the dimensions of Quality of Life
Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference
General quality of life
Physical Domain
Psychological domain
Social relationship domain
Environmental domain
Overall Total
-.169
-.065
-.131
-.125
-.118
-.156
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the table it is understood that there is no significant relationship between the family size of the respondents and the various dimensions of quality of life such as General quality of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and overall quality of life.
Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Family Size of the respondents and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale
Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference
Physical Activity -.142 P>0.05
Psychological Activity
Social Activity
Overall Total
.002
-.217
-.192
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
There is no significant relationship between the family size of the respondents and the various dimensions of physical activity, psychological activity, social activity and overall activity.
Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Monthly Income of the respondents and the dimensions of Quality of Life
Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference
General quality of life .041 P>0.05
Physical Domain
Psychological domain
Social relationship domain
Environmental domain
Overall Total
.035
-.020
-.235
.052
-.023
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
From the table it is understood that there is no significant relationship between the monthly income of the respondents and the various dimensions of quality of life such as General quality of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and overall quality of life.
Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Monthly Income of the respondents and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale
Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference
Physical Activity .057 P>0.05
Psychological Activity
Social Activity
Overall Total
-.118
-.084
-.048
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
P>0.05
Not Significant
There is no significant relationship between the monthly income of the respondents and the various dimensions of physical activity, psychological activity, social activity and overall activity.