CHAPTER V ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF...
Transcript of CHAPTER V ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF...
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS AND
INTERPRETATION OF DATA
74
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
5.1.0 Introduction
This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of all the responses
received from the users about Use of INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of Indian
Institutes of Technology. The data is analyzed using Mean, Standard Deviation (SD),
Chi square, Regression, Correlation, factor analysis, ANOVA and Reliability Test etc.
is presented below:
Section: 1 - Demographic profile
Section: 2 - Awareness and Familiarity with INDEST E-Resources
Section: 3 - Access and Use of INDEST E-Resources
Section: 4- Reliability Test for different factors
Section: 5 - Importance of INDEST E-Resources
Section: 6 - IIT wise Use of INDEST E-Resources by Faculty of IITs
Section: 7 - Designation wise using of INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of IITs
Section: 8- Age wise Use of INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of IITs
Section: 9- Computer Literacy in using INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of
IITs
Section: 10- Factors influencing usage of INDEST E-Resources by IIT faculty
members
Section: 11- Factors affecting INDEST E-Resources usage on level of satisfaction
by faculty of top seven IITs
Section: 12- Awareness of INDEST E-Resources among faculty of top seven IITs
Section: 13- Years of using of INDEST E-Resources among faculty of top seven
IITs
Section: 14- Format used to download INDEST E-Resources among faculty of top
seven IITs
75
Section: 15- Components of INDEST E-Resources used by faculty of top seven IITs
Section: 16- Features used to search INDEST E-Resources used by faculty of top
seven IITs
Section: 17- Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a week by
faculty of top seven IITs
Section: 18- Average time spent in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-
Resources by faculty of top seven IITs
Section: 19- Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources from faculty (students,
colleagues, etc.) of top seven IITs
Section: 20- Need to improve skills to use INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of
top seven IITs
Section: 21- Training /orientation need for effectively accessing INDEST E-
Resources usage by faculty of top seven IITs
76
SECTION -1
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
5.1.0 Introduction
Section 1deals with the analysis about various demographic (IIT, Gender, Age,
Education Qualification, Designation, Computer literacy) with the use of INDEST E-
Resources.
5.1.1 IIT Wise Distribution (Distribution of source data)
The investigator distributed a total of 2938 questionnaires amongst the
Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors of top seven IITs selected
for the study. Out of 2938 questionnaires distributed a total of 411 filled
questionnaires were received. Which were found to be usable were selected for the
study. The details of the distribution analysis are described in table 5.1.1 below.
Out of 7 Indian Institutes of Technology examined, IIT Bombay has the largest
number 102 (24.8%) followed by IIT Madras and IIT Guwahati with 87 (21.2%) and
70 (17.1%). 46 (11.3%) of the total respondents are from IIT Kharagpur followed by
IIT Kanpur, IIT Delhi and IIT Roorkee with 36 (8.7%), 36 (8.7%) and 34 (8.2%)
respectively.
5.1.1 IIT Wise Distribution (Distribution of source data)
S/N Name of the IIT
No of
Responses Percentage
1 IIT Kharagpur 46 11.3
2 IIT Bombay 102 24.8
3 IIT Madras 87 21.2
4 IIT Kanpur 36 8.7
5 IIT Delhi 36 8.7
6 IIT Guwahati 70 17.1
7 IIT Roorkee 34 8.2
Total 411 100.0
77
Figure 1: IIT Wise Distribution (Distribution of source data)
5.1.2 Gender
The sample selected for the study consists of both male and female
respondents. The gender wise distribution of Indian Institutes of Technology users is
shown in table 5.1.2 It may be seen from the table that majority of the respondents
numbering 348 (84.7%) are male and the remaining 63 (15.3%) are female.
Table 5.1.2: Gender
S/N Gender No of Responses Percentage
1 Male 348 84.7
2 Female 63 15.3
Total 411 100.0
Fig.2: Gender
11.3%
24.8%
21.2%
8.7%
8.7%
17.1%
8.2%
IIT Kharagpur
IIT Bombay
IIT Madras
IIT Kanpur
IIT Delhi
IIT Guwahati
IIT Roorkee
15.3%
84.7%
78
5.1.3 Age
Age has an important influence on the use of information in general and
INDEST E-Resources in particular. It is assumed that younger the age, higher is the
usage of INDEST e-resources. But the researcher found that senior faculty members
use e-resources more than the junior faculty members.
The Age wise distribution of INDEST E-Resources respondents is shown in
table 5.1.3. The age of the Indian Institutes of Technology faculty is arranged in
different age groups. It is clear from the table that majority of the respondents
numbering 165 (40 %) are in the age group of 36 – 45 years. The respondents between
the age group of 46 – 55 years numbering 93 (22.7%) are the second largest. About 81
(19.8%) respondents fall in the age group of 25 – 35 years. A few respondents
accounting 72 (17.6%) are in the age group of >56 years. The table clearly shows that
users in the age group between 36 and 45are the highest.
Table 5.1.3: Age
S/N Range of Age No. of Responses Percentage
1 25 - 35 81 19.8
2 36 – 45 165 40.0
3 46 – 55 93 22.7
4 >56 72 17.6
Total 411 100
Fig.3: Age
19.8%
40.0%
22.7%
17.6%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
25 to 35 yrs 36 - 45 46 - 55 >56
79
5.1.4 Educational Qualifications
The qualification wise distribution shown in table 5.1.4 provides the details of
the educational qualifications of the respondents. Total 411 respondents that is 100%
faculty have PhD Qualification. The M. Tech., M.Sc. and MBA are 0 numbers of
respondents.
Table 5.1.4: Educational Qualifications
S/N Educational
Qualifications
No of
Responses Percentage
1 M. Tech 0 0
2 M.Sc 0 0
3 MBA 0 0
4 PhD 411 100
Total 411 100.0
5.1.5 Designation
The designation of the respondents is taken as one of the variables for studying
the use of INDEST e-resources by faculty of top seven IITs in the study. The
designation wise breakup of responses is shown in table 5.1.5.It observed from the
table that majority of the respondents numbering 174 (42.2%) are Professors, whereas
143 respondents representing 34.9 percent are Assistant Professors and Associate
Professors represent 94 (22.9%).
Table 5.1.5: Designation
S/N Designation No of Responses Percentage
1 Professor 174 42.2
2 Associate Professor 94 22.9
3 Assistant Professor 143 34.9
Total 411 100.0
80
Fig.5: Designation
5.1.6 Level of Computer literacy
The computer literacy shown in table 5.1.6 provides the details of the
Computer literacy of the respondents. 263 respondents that is 64% faculty have good
computer literacy, 120 respondents are expert in computer literacy that is 29.2% and
remaining 28 respondents having average computer literacy that is 6.8%.
Table 5.1.6: Level of Computer literacy
S/N Level of Computer
Literacy
No of
Respondents Percentage
1 Expert 120 29.2
2 Good 263 64.0
3 Average 28 6.8
Total 411 100.0
42.2%
22.9%
34.9%
Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
81
Fig. 6: Level of Computer Literacy
5.1.7. Summary
The majority of responses are from IIT Bombay and IIT Madras (Table 5.1.1),
Maximum (84.7%) of the respondents are Male (Table 5.1.2), the users in the age
group of 36 and 45 years are the highest (Table 5.1.3), all respondents have Ph.D.
qualification (Table 5.1.4), the highest percentages of respondents are Professors
(Table 5.1.5), the maximum 263 respondents that is 64%faculty have good computer
literacy (Table 5.1.6).
Expert
Good
Average
Level of Computer Literacy
6.8%
29.2%
64%
82
SECTION -2
AWARENESS OF INDEST E-RESOURCES
5.2.0 Introduction
Section 2 deals with the analysis about respondent’s awareness of INDEST E-
Resources and Mode of awareness of INDEST E-Resources.
5.2.1 Awareness about INDEST E-Resources
Awareness of INDEST E-Resources is shown in table 5.2.1. It may be seen
from the table that all the respondents 411(100%) are aware of INDEST E-Resources.
Table 5.2.1: Awareness of INDEST E-Resources
S/N Type of response No of Responses Percentage
1 Yes 411 100.0
2 No 0 0.00
Total 411 100.0
Fig. 6: Awareness of INDEST E-Resources
5.2.2 Mode of awareness of INDEST E-Resources
The Mode of awareness of INDEST E-Resources is presented in table 5.2.2. It
may be seen from the table that there are several sources with which the faculty
members (Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors) become aware
the availability of INDEST E-Resources.
Nearly 248 respondents scoring 60.4% of the total respondents learnt about
INDEST E-Resources from ‘Library professional staff’; about 75 respondents scoring
0
100
200
300
400
500
YES No
Awareness of INDEST E-Resources
83
18.2%, approached ‘Colleagues’ to know about INDEST E-Resources; 64 of
respondents scoring 15.6% learnt from ‘Internet’ and the remaining by 24 respondents
scoring 5.8% learnt from ‘Friends’.
Table 5.2.2: Mode of INDEST E-Resources awareness
S/N Mode of Awareness No of
Responses Percentage
1 Friends 24 5.8
2 Library professional staff 248 60.4
3 Internet 64 15.6
4 Colleagues 75 18.2
Total 411 100.0
Fig. 7: Mode of INDEST E-Resources awareness
5.2.3 Summary
This section deals with awareness and familiarity of INDEST E-Resources among the
faculty of IITs. All the respondents are aware of INDEST E-Resources (Table 5.2.1).
Majority (60.3%) of the respondents became aware of INDEST E-Resources from
Library professional staff (Table 5.2.2).
5.8%
60.3%
15.6% 18.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Friends Library professional staff Internet Colleagues
84
SECTION - 3
ACCESS AND USE OF INDEST E-RESOURCES
5.3.0 Introduction
Section 3 presents the analysis of access and use of INDEST E-Resources,
place of accessing INDEST E-Resource, years of using INDEST E-Resources;
availability of important journals in INDEST- AICTE consortium; format used to
download INDEST E-Resources; components used in INDEST E-Resources; main
features used to search INDEST E-Resources; No. of articles read from INDEST E-
Resources per week and average time spent by faculty to access INDEST E-
Resources per week, purpose of using, advantages, disadvantages, availability and
accessibility of INDEST E-Resources, Importance, reading pattern, Satisfaction,
Facing any problem, Do you recommend to use, Do you need to improve your skills
and do you need training /orientation for effectively use INDEST E-Resources.
5.3.1 Access and use of INDEST E-Resources
The access and use of INDEST E-Resource by the faculty of IITs is shown in
table 5.3.1. It may be seen from the table that all IITs Faculty 411 (100%) access and
use INDEST E-Resources.
Table 5.3.1: Access and use of INDEST E-Resources
S/N Access & use of INDEST
E-Resources
No of
Respondents Percentage
1 Yes 411 100
2 No 0 0
Total 411 100.0
Fig.8: Access and use of INDEST E-Resources
411
0
Yes No
Access and use of INDEST E-Resources
85
5.3.2 Place of Access and Use INDEST E-Resources
The place of access and use INDEST E-Resource by the faculty of IITs is
shown in table 5.3.2. It may be seen from the table that majority of the respondents
accessing INDEST E-Resources 293 (71%) from Department followed by 65 (16%)
of the respondents access INDEST E-Resources in campus and remaining 53 (13%) of
the respondents access INDEST E-Resources from Library.
Table 5.3.2: Place of access and use INDEST E-Resources
S/N Place of Access No. of Responses Percentage
1 Library 53 13
2 Department 293 71
3 Campus 65 16
Total 411 100
Fig. 9: Place of access and use INDEST E-Resources
5.3.3 Years of Use of INDEST E-Resources
The years of use of INDEST E-Resources is shown in table 5.3.3. It may be
seen from the table that majority of the respondents are using INDEST E-Resources
from ‘more than 4 years (270; 65.8% )’, followed by respondents using INDEST E-
Resources since ‘1-4 years’ (79; 19.2%) and ‘Less than 1year’ (62; 15%).
13%
71%
16%
Place of Accessing INDEST E-Resources
Library Department Campus
86
Table 5.3.3: Years of Use of INDEST E-Resources
S/N Years of Use No of Responses Percentage
1 Less than 1 year 62 15.0
2 1-4 years 79 19.2
3 More than 4 years 270 65.8
Total 411 100.0
Fig.10: Years of Use of INDEST E-Resources
5.3.4 Average Time Spent by faculty to access INDEST E- Resources per Week
The average time spent by faculty to access INDEST E-Resources per week is
shown in table 5.3.4. It may be seen from the table that majority of the respondents
representing 144 (35.1%) spend more than 4 hours in a week followed by 136
respondents scoring 33.1% who spend 1-2 hours per week, 78 respondents spend 2-4
hours per week scoring 19% and 53 respondents spend less than 1 hour per week
scoring 12.8%.
Table 5.3.4: Average Time Spent by faculty to access INDEST E- Resources per
Week
S/N Average Time Spent Per Week No of Respondents Percentage
1 Less than 1 hour 53 12.8
2 1-2 hours 136 33.1
3 2-4 hours 78 19.0
4 More than 4 hours 144 35.1
Total 411 100.0
15.0% 19.3%
65.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Less than 1 yr 1-4 years More than 4 years
87
Fig. 11: Average Time Spent by faculty to access INDEST E- Resources/Week
5.3.5 Availability of Important Journals in INDEST-AICTE Consortium
The Availability of Important Journals in INDEST-AICTE consortia is shown
in the table 5.3.5. It may be seen from the table that majority of respondents (224;
54.6%) express that all the important journals are not available in INDEST-AICTE
consortia and only respondents (187; 45.4%) state that important journals are available
in INDEST-AICTE consortia.
Table 5.3.5: Availability of Important Journals in INDEST AICTE Consortium
S/N Availability of Important
Journals No. of Responses Percentage
1 Yes 187 45.4
2 No 224 54.6
Total 411 100.0
Fig.12: Availability of Important Journals in INDEST-AICTE Consortia
Less than 1
hour, 12.8%
1-2 hours,
33.1%
2-4 hours,
19.0%
More than 4
hours, 35.1%
45.4%
54.6%
Yes
No
88
5.3.6 Format Used to download INDEST E-Resources
The format used to download INDEST E-Resources is shown in table 5.3.6. It
may be seen from the table that 350 respondents that is 85.2% use PDF format and 61
respondents representing 14.8% use HTML format to download INDEST E-
Resources.
Table 5.3.6: Formats Used to download INDEST E-Resources
S/N Format Used No of Respondents Percentage
1 PDF 350 85.2
2 HTML 61 14.8
Total 411 100.0
Fig. 13: Format Used to download INDEST E-Resources
5.3.7 Components Used in INDEST E-Resources
The components used in INDEST E-Resources by the faculty members of top
seven IITs shown in table 5.3.7. It may be seen from the table that majority of the
respondents representing 341that is (82.9%) use full text followed by 53 respondents
scoring 12.8% use Abstract, 9 respondents use ‘Article references’ (2.3%) and 8
respondents use ‘Table of Contents’ (2%).
Table 5.3.7: Components Used in INDEST E-Resources
S/N Components No of Respondents Percentage
1 Table of contents 8 2.0
2 Abstract 53 12.8
3 Full Text 341 82.9
4 Article References 9 2.3
Total 411 100.0
PDF,
85.3%
HTML/S
GML,
14.8%
89
Fig. 14: Components Used in INDEST E-Resources
5.3.8 Main Feature Used to search INDEST E-Resources
The main features used to search INDEST E-Resources in table 5.3.8. It may
be seen from the table that majority of the respondents representing 192 (46.6%) use
INDEST E-Resources by ‘Author’ followed by 122 respondents (29.6%) who use
‘Journal name’, 49 respondents (12%) have selected Subject and the remaining 48
(11.8%) respondents use “title’ used to search INDEST E-Resources.
Table 5.3.8: Main Feature Used to search INDEST E-Resources
S/N Main Feature Used No of Respondents Percentage
1 Author 192 46.6
2 Journal name 122 29.6
3 Subject 49 12.0
4 Title 48 11.8
Total 411 100.0
Fig. 15: Main Feature Used to search INDEST E-Resources
2.0%
12.8%
82.9%
2.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Table of contents Abstract Full Text Article References
Author
Journal name
Subject
Title
0 10 20 30 40 50
Author
Journal name
Subject
Title
90
5.3.9 No. of INDEST E-Resources articles read by faculty per week
The number of INDEST E-Resources articles read by faculty members of top
seven IITs per week to do their academic and research activities in their field is shown
in table 5.3.9. It may be seen from the table that majority of the respondents
representing 168 respondents (40.9%) read ‘Less than 5’ articles, followed by 138
respondents (33.6%) who read ‘5-10’ articles and81 (19.8%) respondents read 11 -15
and articles, only 24 (5.8%) respondents state that they read ‘More than 15’ articles
per week.
Table 5.3.9: No. of INDEST E-Resources articles read by faculty per week
S/N No. of Articles read per week No of Respondents Percentage
1 Less than 5 168 40.8
2 5 to 10 138 33.6
3 11 to 15 81 19.8
4 More than 15 24 5.8
Total 411 100.0
Fig. 16: No. of INDEST E-Resources articles read by faculty per week
5.3.10 Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
An attempt was made here to find out the Purpose of using INDEST E-
Resources by faculty of top seven IITs shown in table 5.3.10 the mean value and SD
for the eight attributes of purpose of using INDEST E-Resources. ‘Teaching’ has
represents with the mean value of 3.89 with a corresponding Standard Deviation is
0.97 followed by ‘Research’ with a highest mean value of 4.77 with a corresponding
Standard Deviation is 0.52. ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’ has the mean value of
Less than
5, 40.9%
5 to 10,
33.6%
11 to 15,
19.8%
More than
15, 5.8%
91
4.42 and the SD is 0.93 followed by ‘To write Articles’, ‘To know the trends in
Technical field’, ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in the field’,
‘To get latest facts and statistics’ and ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’ with
mean value of 4.39, 4.2, 4.17, 4.11 and 4.08 and their respective SD is 0.78, 1.09,
1.01, 1.01 and 0.97.
Table 5.3.10: Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
S/N Attributes
Responses in Percentage (N=411)
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Teaching 6(1.5) 27(6.6) 82(19.9) 150(36.6) 145 (35.3) 3.89 0.97
2 Research 2(.5) 0(0) 6(1.5) 68(16.6) 334 (81.3) 4.77 0.52
3 To be up-to-date in the
subject 14(3.3) 4(1.0) 21(5.1) 145(35.3) 227 (55.2) 4.42 0.93
4 Preparing for seminars,
workshops etc 14(3.3) 7(1.8) 58(14.1) 170(41.3) 162 (39.5) 4.08 0.97
5 To get latest facts and
statistics 17(4.1) 7(1.8) 48(11.8) 166(40.4) 173 (41.9) 4.11 1.01
6 To know the trends in
Technical field 24(5.9) 2(.5) 39(9.5) 137(33.2) 209 (50.9) 4.2 1.09
7 To get comprehensive
knowledge and be
competitive in the field 15(3.6) 8(2.0) 51(12.5) 143(34.9) 193(46.9) 4.17 1.01
8 To write Articles 6(1.5) 4(1.0) 20(4.9) 161(39.1) 220 (53.5) 4.39 0.78
5.3.11 Advantages of INDEST E-Resources
An attempt was made here to find out the advantages inusing INDEST E-
Resources by faculty of top seven IITs shown in the table 5.3.11 and figure 16
provides the details of the Mean value and Standard deviatiion for the five attributes
of Advantages. The mean value for the ‘Search ability/search capabilities’ is 4.31 and
the Standard Deviation is 0.79 followed by ‘Convenience’, ‘Currency (Up-to-date
information)’, ‘User-friendly interface’ and ‘Retrieval possibilities’ with mean value
of 4.31, 4.28, 4.25 and 4.25 and their respective Standard Deviation is 0.81, 0.8, 0.78
and 0.83. ‘Full text retrieval’ has the highest mean value of 4.44 and the Standard
Deviation is 0.76 followed by ‘downloading possibilities’ with mean value of 4.40 and
Standard Deviation is 0.67. ‘Accuracy’ has the highest mean value of 4.01 and the
Standard Deviation is 0.82 followed by ‘Credibility’ and ‘Connecting people’ with
mean value of 4 and 3.4 and their respective Standard Deviation is 0.88 and 1.19.
92
Table 5.3.11: Advantages of INDEST E-Resources
S/N Attributes
Responses in Percentage (N=411)
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Currency (Up-to-
date information) 4(1.0) 3(.8) 50(12.3) 165(40.2) 188 (45.7) 4.28 0.8
2 User-friendly
interface 2(.5) 7(1.8) 47(11.5) 176(43.0) 178 (43.2) 4.25 0.78
3 Searchability/sea
rch capabilities 5(1.3) 4(1.0) 37(9.0) 174(42.2) 191 (46.5) 4.31 0.79
4 Retrieval
possibilities 3(.8) 7(1.8) 58(14.1) 161(39.2) 182 (44.2) 4.23 0.83
5 Downloading
possibilities 0(.0) 1(.3) 39(9.5) 163(39.7) 208 (50.6) 4.4 0.67
6 Full text retrieval 0(.0) 9(2.3) 36(8.7) 121(29.4) 245 (59.6) 4.44 0.76
7 Convenience 0(.0) 9(2.3) 56(13.6) 139(34) 207 (50.1) 4.31 0.81
8 Connecting
people 25(6.1) 57(13.8) 160(38.9) 81(19.7) 88 (21.5) 3.4 1.19
9 Credibility 9(2.3) 9(2.3) 62(15.1) 222(54.0) 108 (26.3) 4 0.88
10 Accuracy 4(1.0) 8(2.0) 77(18.7) 210(51.2) 111 (27.1) 4.01 0.82
5.3.12 Disadvantages of INDEST E-Resources
An attempt was made here to find out the disadvantages of INDEST E-
Resources by faculty of top seven IITs shown in table 5.3.12 the mean value and
Standard Deviation for the eight attributes ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’ has
the highest mean value of 2.56 and the Standard Deviation is 1.35 followed by ‘Lack
of Standardized formats’ has the highest mean value of 2.55 and Standard Deviation is
1.2‘Often not included in indexing and abstracting services’ and ‘Limitations of
computer monitor’ with mean value of 2.47 and 2.37 and their Standard Deviation is
1.34. ‘Format that a large proportion of e-journals use’ and ‘Perishable Citation’ with
mean value of 2.37 and 2.33 and their Standard Deviation is 1.03 and 1.06.
‘Authenticity’ has a mean value of 2.21 and the Standard deviation is 1.11. ‘Search
engines ignores PDF files’ has the lowest mean value of 2.04 and the SD is 1.06.
93
Table 5.3.12: Disadvantages of INDEST E-Resources
S/N Attributes
Responses in Percentage (N=411)
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Difficulty reading
computer screens 141(34.3) 92(22.5) 77(18.7) 58(14.1) 43 (10.5) 2.56 1.35
2 Limitations of
computer monitor 174(42.2) 71 (17.4) 85(20.7) 44(10.7) 37 (9.0) 2.37 1.34
3 Often not included
in indexing and
abstracting services 108(26.3)
151
(36.3) 69(16.9) 33(7.9) 50 (12.3) 2.47 1.34
4 Search engines
ignores PDF files 173(42.0)
128
(31.1) 75(18.2) 22(5.4) 14 (3.3) 2.04 1.06
5 Format that a large
proportion of e-
journal use 110(26.8)
145
(35.1) 97(23.5) 59(14.3) 1(.3) 2.37 1.03
6 Lack of
standardized
formats 106(25.6)
104
(25.1) 84(20.3) 108(26.7) 9(2.3) 2.55 1.2
7 Perishable citation 108(26.4)
127
(30.0) 101(24.3) 74(18.0) 1(.3) 2.33 1.06
8 Authenticity 148(35.9) 95 (23.1) 117(28.5) 44(10.7) 7(1.8) 2.21 1.11
5.3.13 Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources
This show about availability and accessibility of INDEST E-Resources
showed in the table 5.3.13 the mean value and the Standard Deviation for the six
attributes of ‘Availability and Accessibility’. ‘Desktop availability’ has the highest
mean value of 4.29 and Standard Deviation is 0.98. The mean value for ‘Prompt
accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’, ‘Free access’ and ‘Multiuser access’ is 4.26, 4.06
and 3.49 and their respective Standard Deviation is 1.04, 1.04 and 1.24 respectively,
‘Requiring special equipment’ has the highest mean value of 2.18 and the Standard
Deviation is 1.16 followed by ‘Requiring Training’ with mean value of 2.15 and the
Standard Deviation is 1.05.
94
Table 5.3.13: Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources
S/N Attributes
Responses in Percentage (N=411)
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1
Prompt accessibility
(7/24 hours a day) 20(4.9) 13(3.1) 14(3.3) 143(34.8) 222(54.0) 4.26 1.04
2 Desktop availability 12(2.8) 17(4.1) 24(5.9) 140(34.0) 219(53.2) 4.29 0.98
3 Free access 12(2.8) 24(5.9) 57(13.8) 131(32.0) 187(45.5) 4.06 1.04
4 Multiuser access 43(10.5) 14(3.3) 134(32.7) 106(25.8) 144(27.7) 3.49 1.24
5
Requiring special
equipment 183(44.5) 78(18.9) 91(22.3) 49(12.0) 9(2.3) 2.18 1.16
6 Requiring training 149(36.3) 121(29.4) 96(23.3) 42(10.2) 3(.8) 2.15 1.05
5.3.14 Importance of INDEST E-Resources
The below Table 5.3.14 provide the details of the mean value and Standard
Deviation for the two attributes of Importance of INDEST E-Resources. ‘Do you
think that the information content of INDEST E-Resources is useful’ has a mean value
of 4.58 and the Standard Deviation is 0.74 followed by ‘Importance of the INDEST E-
Resources for your research’ with mean value of 4.57 and Standard Deviation is 0.74.
‘Importance’ has a mean value of 4.58 and the Standard Deviation is 0.71.
Table 5.3.14: Importance of INDEST E-Resources
S/
N Attributes
Responses in Percentage (N=411)
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1
Importance of the
INDEST E-Resources for
your research 6(1.5) 1(.3) 18(4.3) 113(27.4) 273(66.5) 4.57 0.74
2
Do you think that the
information content of
INDEST E-Resources is
useful 6(1.5) 1(.3) 18(4.3) 111(27.0) 275(66.9) 4.58 0.74
95
5.3.15 Reading Pattern of INDEST E-Resources
The reading pattern of INDEST E-Resources journals by faculty of top seven
IITs shown in table 5.3.15 provide the details of the mean value and SD for the two
attributes of ‘Read Electronic and Read Print’. Read Electronic has the highest mean
value of 4.20 and the SD is 0.89. Read Print mean value is 3.23 and the SD is 1.16.
Table 5.3.14: Reading Pattern of INDEST E-Resources
S/
N Attributes
Responses in Percentage (N=411)
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Read electronic(on monitor) 3(.8) 16(3.8) 57(13.8) 146(35.7) 189(45.9) 4.2 0.89
2 Read Print out 41(10.2) 52(11.5) 178(45.0) 68(16.4) 72(16.9) 3.23 1.16
5.3.16 Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources
With regard to the satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources shown in the
table 5.3.16 provides the details of the mean value and Standard Deviation for the
seven attributes of ‘Satisfaction’. The highest mean value is for ‘Infrastructure
available to Access INDEST E-Resources’4.15 and the Standard Deviation are 0.9.
‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the library’ has a mean value of 4.01
and the Standard Deviation is 0.98 followed by ‘Satisfaction obtained from using
INDEST E-Resources’, ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-Resources in your
library’, ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’, ‘How far INDEST E-
Resources available in library enable you to meet your needs’ and ‘Back volumes of
INDEST E-Resources available in library’ with mean value of 3.96, 3.86, 3.78, 3.78
and 3.58 and their respective Standard Deviation is 0.8, 0.99, 0.99, 1.07 and 1.07
respectively. ‘Satisfaction’ has an average mean value of 3.88 and the Standard
Deviation is 0.85.
96
Table 5.3.16: Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources
S/N Attributes
Responses in Percentage (N=411)
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Required INDEST E-
Resources subscribed by
the library
3(.8) 38(9.2) 54(13.0) 163(39.7) 153(37.3) 4.01 0.98
2 Subject coverage of
available INDEST E-
Resources in your library
0(.0) 55(13.3) 55(13.6) 178(43.4) 123(29.7) 3.86 0.99
3 Number of INDEST E-
Resources available in
library
1(.3) 76(18.4) 66(16.1) 179(43.5) 89(21.7) 3.78 0.99
4 Back volumes of INDEST
E-Resources available in
library
6(1.5) 73(17.9) 76(18.4) 164(39.8) 92(22.3) 3.58 1.07
5 How far INDEST E-
Resources available in
library enable you to meet
your needs
11(2.6) 54(13.0) 49(12.0) 183(44.3) 115(28.1) 3.78 1.07
6 Satisfaction obtained from
using INDEST E-
Resources
1(.3) 23(5.6) 58(14.1) 229(55.6) 100(24.5) 3.96 0.8
7 Infrastructure available to
Access INDEST E-
Resources
2(.5) 30(7.4) 29(7.2) 183(44.5) 166(40.4) 4.15 0.9
5.3.17. Facing any problem while using INDEST E-Resources
Facing any problem while using INDEST E-Resources is shown in the table
5.3.17 that majority of respondents 359 (87.2%) express that they are not facing any
problem and remaining 52 (12.8%) respondents express that they are facing problem
while using INDEST E-Resources.
Table 5.3.17: Facing any problems while using INDEST E-Resources
S/N Facing any problem while using INDEST No. of
Responses Percentage
1 Yes 52 12.8
2 No 359 87.2
Total 411 100.0
97
Fig. 17: Facing any problem while using INDEST
5.3.18. Do you recommend INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues,
etc.)?
Do you recommend to use INDEST E-Resources is shown in the table 5.3.18
that majority of respondents 409 (99.0%) express that they recommend to use
INDEST E-Resources to others and remaining 2 (1%) respondents express that they
are not going to recommend to use INDEST E-Resources.
Table 5.3.18: Do you recommend INDEST E-Resources to others
S/N Do you recommend INDEST E-Resources to
others
No. of
Responses Percentage
1 Yes 409 99.0
2 No 2 1.0
Total 411 100.0
Fig. 18: Do you recommend INDEST E-Resources to others
Yes
No
Facing any problem while using
INDEST E-Resources
87.2%
12.8%
Yes
No99%
1%
Do you recommend INDEST E-
Resources to others
98
5.3.19. Do you need to improve your skill to use INDEST E-Resources?
Do you need to improve your skill to use INDEST E-Resources is shown in
the table 5.3.19 that majority of respondents 274 (66.0%) express that they are skilled
enough to use INDEST E-Resources and remaining 137 (34%) respondents express
that they want to improve their skills to use INDEST E-Resources.
Table 5.3.19: Do you need to improve your skill to use of INDEST E-Resources
S/N Need to improve your skill to use INDEST
E-Resources
No. of
Responses Percentage
1 Yes 137 34.0
2 No 274 66.0
Total 411 100.0
Fig. 19: Do you need to improve your skill to use INDEST E-Resources
5.3.20. Do you need training /orientation for effectively use INDEST E-Resources
Do you need training /orientation for effectively use INDEST E-Resources use
is shown in the table 5.3.20 that majority of respondents 323 (78.0%) express that they
don’t want any training to use INDEST E-Resources and remaining 88 (22%)
respondents express that they required training /orientation for effectively use
INDEST E-Resources.
Yes
No
Need to improve your skill in
the use of INDEST E-Resources
66% 34%
99
Table 5.3.20: Do you need training /orientation for effectively use INDEST E-
Resources
S/N Need training /orientation for effectively
use INDEST E-Resources
No. of
Responses Percentage
1 Yes 88 22.0
2 No 323 78.0
Total 411 100.0
Fig. 20: Need training /orientation for effectively use INDEST E-Resources
5.3.21 Summary
This section 3 deals with awareness and familiarity of INDEST E-Resources to the
faculty of IITs. The summary of section 5.3 indicates that all IIT Faculty access and use
INDEST E-Resources 411(100%) (Table 5.3.1) Majority of the respondent’s access
and use INDEST E-Resources (293; 71%) from Department (Table 5.3.2). The
majority (270; 65.8%)of the respondents are using INDEST E-Resources from ‘more
than 4 years’(Table 5.3.3). 144 (35.1%) spend more than 4 hours in a week, followed
by 136 (33.1%) who spend 1-2 hours per week (Table 5.3.4). 224; 54.6% Faculty
members express that important journals are not available in INDEST-AICTE
consortia(Table 5.3.5). 350 respondents are scoring 85.2% use PDF format to
download (Table 5.3.6). Majority that is 341 (82.9%) use full text in INDEST E-
Resources (Table 5.3.7). (46.6%) that is 192 IIT Faculty use Author to search in
INDEST E-Resources (Table 5.3.8). Majority 168 (40.9%) read ‘Less than 5’ articles,
followed by 138 (33.6%) who read ‘5-10’ articles per week (Table 5.3.9). ‘Research’
with a highest mean value of 4.77 with a corresponding Standard Deviation is 0.52.
Yes
No
Need Training/Orientation
22%
78%
100
‘To be up-to-date in the subject’ has the mean value of 4.42 and the SD is 0.93 (Table
5.3.10). ‘Full text retrieval’ has the highest mean value of 4.44 and the Standard
Deviation is 0.76 followed by ‘downloading possibilities’ with mean value of 4.40 and
Standard Deviation is 0.67 (Table 5.3.11). ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’ has
the highest mean value of 2.56 and the Standard Deviation is 1.35 followed by ‘Lack
of Standardized formats’ has the highest mean value of 2.55 and Standard Deviation is
1.2 (Table 5.3.12). Desktop availability’ has the highest mean value of 4.29 and
Standard Deviation is 0.98 (Table 5.3.13). Importance of INDEST E-Resources ‘Do
you think that the information content of INDEST E-Resources is useful’ has a mean
value of 4.58 and the Standard Deviation is 0.74 (Table 5.3.14). Read Electronic has
the highest mean value of 4.20 and the SD is 0.89 (Table 5.3.15). The highest mean
value is for ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-Resources’4.15 and the
Standard Deviation are 0.9. ‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the
library’ has a mean value of 4.01 and the Standard Deviation is 0.98 (Table 5.3.16).
Majority of respondents 359 (87.2%) expressed that they are not facing any problem
(Table 5.3.17). The Majority of respondents 409 (99.0%) expressed that they
recommend to use INDEST E-Resources to others (Table 5.3.18). Majority of
respondents 274 (66.0%) expressed that they are skilled enough to use INDEST E-
Resources (Table 5.3.19). The majority of respondents 323 (78.0%) expressed that
they don’t want any training to use INDEST E-Resources (Table 5.3.20).
101
SECTION - 4
RELIABILITY TEST FOR DIFFERENT FACTORS
5.4.0 Introduction
Section 4 deals with the reliability test for different factors, ways and means of
obtaining and using, skills required, purpose of using, limitation, availability and
accessibility, core purpose and satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources by faculty
members of top seven IITs.
5.4.1 Test Result
The table 5.4.1 shows the reliability test for the different factors. ‘Satisfaction’
has the highest Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.948 followed by ‘Importance’, ‘F2
Disadvantages’, ‘F1 Basic Advantage’, ‘F3 Augmented Purpose’ and ‘F5 Limitation
of accessing system’ with Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.904, 0.893, 0.873, 0.862 and
0.851 respectively. The Cronbach's Alpha value for ‘F9 Value Addition’ is 0.827, ‘F4
Availability and accessibility’ is 0.810, ‘F7 Expected Facilitation’ is 0.806, ‘F8 Core
purpose’ is 0.734 and ‘F6 Strength in accessing network’ is 0.72.
It can be interpreted from the above details that ‘Satisfaction’ has the highest
Cronbach's Alpha value and ‘F6 Strength in accessing network’ has the lowest
Cronbach’s Alpha value.
Table 5.4.1: Test Result
Constructs Cronbach's Alpha
F1 Basic Advantages 0.873
F2 Disadvantages 0.893
F3 Augmented Purpose 0.862
F4 Availability and accessibility 0.810
F5 Limitation of accessing system 0.851
F6 Strength in accessing network 0.720
F7 Expected Facilitation 0.806
F8 Core purpose 0.734
F9 Value addition 0.827
Satisfaction 0.948
Importance 0.904
102
Factor Analysis
An attempt was made to know the general purpose of factor analysis is to find
a method of summarizing the information contained in a number of original variables
to a smaller set of new composite dimensions (factors) with minimum loss of
information. That is, the Factor Analysis tries to identify and define the underlying
dimensions in the original variables.
5.4.2 Rotated Component Matrix
Rotated Component Method for factor extraction is used, wherein the number
of factors necessary to represent the data and the method of calculating them must be
determined. At this step, how well the chosen model fits the data is also ascertained.
Eigen value is kept closer or greater than 1 to extract factors from the given variables.
This step is to determine the method of factor extraction, number of initial factors and
the estimates of factors. Here Rotated Components Analysis is used to extract factors
to represent the data. For our study, we have 32 variables (statements rating varying
from 1 to 5) where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree.
The table 5.4.2 provides there are several methods available for rotating factor
matrix. The one used in this analysis is Varimax Rotation. This is the most commonly
used method and attempts to minimize the number of variables that have high
loadings on a factor. This should enhance the interpretability of the factors. The
Rotated Component Matrix using Varimax rotation is given in the above table, where
each factor identifies itself with a few set of variables.
103
Table 5.4.2: Rotated Component Matrix
Rotated Component Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Basic
Advantages
User-friendly interface 0.875
Retrieval possibilities 0.866
Search ability/search capabilities 0.807
Currency (Up-to-date information) 0.712
Convenience 0.661
Disadvantage
s
Perishable citation
0.889
Format that a large proportion of e-journal
use 0.863
Lack of standardized formats
0.818
Authenticity
0.772
Search engines ignores PDF files
0.543
Augmented
Purpose
To be up-to-date in the subject
0.828
Preparing for seminars, workshops etc
0.805
To get latest facts and statistics
0.776
To know the trends in Technical field
0.749
To get comprehensive knowledge and be
competitive in the field 0.734
To write Articles
0.503
104
Availability
and
accessibility
Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours a day)
0.861
Desktop availability
0.831
Free access
0.781
Multiuser access
0.602
Limitation of
accessing
system
Difficulty reading computer screens
0.841
Limitations of computer monitor
0.83
Often not included in indexing and
abstracting services 0.679
Strength in
accessing
network
Accuracy
0.851
Credibility
0.841
Connecting people
0.595
Expected
Facilitation
Requiring special equipment
0.804
Requiring training
0.782
Core purpose Teaching
0.904
Research
0.6
Value
addition
Downloading possibilities
0.662
Full text retrieval
0.595
Extraction Method: Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 9 iterations.
105
Summary
Thus, the 32 variables in the data were reduced to 9 factor models and each
factor was identified and named with the corresponding variables as shown in the
above table. The factors are Basic Advantages; Disadvantages; Augmented Purpose;
Availability and accessibility; Limitation of accessing system; Strength in accessing
network; Expected Facilitation; Core purpose and Value addition.
Descriptive
This section gives the detail description of basic advantages, disadvantage,
augmented purpose, availability and accessibility, limitation of accessing system,
strength in accessing network, expected facilitation, core purpose and value addition
of accessing INDEST E-Resources.
5.4.3 Basic Advantages of using INDEST E-Resources
An attempt was made here to find out the basic advantages in using INDEST
E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs. Table 5.4.3 and figure 21 provides the
details of the Mean value and Standard deviatiion for the five attributes of Basic
Advantages. The mean value for the ‘Search ability/search capabilities’ is 4.31 and
the Standard Deviation is 0.79 followed by ‘Convenience’, ‘Currency (Up-to-date
information)’, ‘User-friendly interface’ and ‘Retrieval possibilities’ with mean value
of 4.31, 4.28, 4.25 and 4.25 and their respective Standard Deviation is 0.81, 0.8, 0.78
and 0.83. ‘F1 Basic Advantages’ has a mean value of 4.28 and the Standard Deviation
is 0.66.
Table 5.4.3: Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources
S/N Attributes N Mean SD
1 User-friendly interface 411 4.25 0.78
2 Retrieval possibilities 411 4.23 0.83
3 Search ability/search capabilities 411 4.31 0.79
4 Currency (Up-to-date information) 411 4.28 0.80
5 Convenience 411 4.31 0.81
Basic Advantages 411 4.28 0.66
106
Fig.21 Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources
5.4.4 Disadvantages in using INDEST E-Resources
An attempt was made here to find out the disadvantages in using INDEST E-
Resources by faculty of top seven IITs shown in table 5.4.4 and figure 22 shows the
mean value and the Standard Deviation for the five attributes of Disadvantages. ‘Lack
of Standardized formats’ has the highest mean value of 2.55 and Standard Deviation is
1.2 followed by ‘Format that a large proportion of e-journals use’ and ‘Perishable
Citation’ with mean value of 2.37 and 2.33 and their Standard Deviation is 1.03 and
1.06. ‘Authenticity’ has a mean value of 2.21 and the Standard deviation is 1.11.
‘Search engines ignores PDF files’ has the lowest mean value of 2.04 and the SD is
1.06. The mean value and Standard Deviation for ‘F2 Disadvantages’ is 2.28 and 0.92.
Table 5.4.4: Disadvantages in using INDEST E-Resources
S/N Attributes N Mean SD
1 Perishable citation 411 2.33 1.06
2 Format that a large proportion of e-journal use 411 2.37 1.03
3 Lack of standardized formats 411 2.55 1.20
4 Authenticity 411 2.21 1.11
5 Search engines ignores PDF files 411 2.04 1.06
Disadvantages 411 2.28 0.92
4.25
4.23
4.31
4.28
4.31
4.28
4.18
4.20
4.22
4.24
4.26
4.28
4.30
4.32
Mea
n S
core
107
Fig.22: Disadvantages in using INDEST E-Resources
5.4.5 Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
An attempt was made here to find out the Augmented Purpose of using
INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs shown in table 5.4.5and figure 23
shows the details of the mean value and SD for the six attributes of augmented
purpose. ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’ has the mean value of 4.42 and the SD is
0.93 followed by ‘To write Articles’, ‘To know the trends in Technical field’, ‘To get
comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in the field’, ‘To get latest facts and
statistics’ and ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’ with mean value of 4.39, 4.2,
4.17, 4.11 and 4.08 and their respective SD is 0.78, 1.09, 1.01, 1.01 and 0.97. ‘F3
augmented Purpose’ has a mean value of 4.24 and the SD is 0.75.
Table 5.4.5: Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
S/N Attributes N Mean SD
1 To be up-to-date in the subject 411 4.42 0.93
2 Preparing for seminars, workshops etc 411
4.08 0.97
3 To get latest facts and statistics 411
4.11 1.01
4 To know the trends in Technical field 411
4.20 1.09
5 To get comprehensive knowledge and be competitive
in the field
411 4.17 1.01
6 To write Articles 411 4.39 0.78
Augmented Purpose 411 4.24 0.75
2.33 2.37 2.55
2.21 2.04
2.28
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Perishable citation Format that a
large proportion
of e-journal use
Lack of
standardized
formats
Authenticity Search engines
ignores PDF files
F2 Disadvantages
Mea
n S
core
108
Fig.23: Augmented Purpose for using INDEST E-Resources
5.4.6 Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources
This show about availability and accessibility of INDEST E-Resources shown
in the table 5.4.6 and figure 24 show the mean value and the Standard Deviation for
the four attributes of ‘Availability and Accessibility’. ‘Desktop availability’ has the
highest mean value of 4.29 and Standard Deviation is 0.98. The mean value for
‘Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’, ‘Free access’ and ‘Multiuser access’ is 4.26,
4.06 and 3.49 and their respective Standard Deviation is 1.04, 1.04 and 1.24
respectively. ‘F4 Availability and Accessibility’ has a mean value of 4.03 and the
Standard Deviation is 0.86.
Table 5.4.6: Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources
S/N Attributes N Mean SD
1 Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours a day) 411 4.26 1.04
2 Desktop availability 411 4.29 0.98
3 Free access 411 4.06 1.04
4 Multiuser access 411 3.49 1.24
Availability and accessibility 411 4.03 0.86
4.42
4.08 4.11
4.20 4.17
4.39
4.24
3.90
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50
To be up-to-date
in the subject
Preparing for
seminars,
workshops etc
To get latest facts
and statistics
To know the
trends in
Technical field
To get
comprehensive
knowledge and
be competitive in
the field
To write Articles F3 Augmented
Purpose
Mea
n S
core
109
Fig.24: Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources
5.4.7 Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources
The below table 5.4.7 and figure 25 provide the details of the mean value and
Standard Deviation for the three attributes of ‘Limitations of accessing’. ‘Difficulty
reading computer screens’ has the highest mean value of 2.56 and the Standard
Deviation is 1.35 followed by ‘Often not included in indexing and abstracting
services’ and ‘Limitations of computer monitor’ with mean value of 2.47 and 2.37 and
their Standard Deviation is 1.34. ‘F5 Limitation of accessing’ has a mean value of
2.47 and the Standard Deviation is 1.19.
Table 5.4.7: Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources
S/N Attributes N Mean SD
1 Difficulty reading computer screens 411 2.56 1.35
2 Limitations of computer monitor 411
2.37 1.34
3 Often not included in indexing and abstracting services 411
2.47 1.34
Limitation of accessing 411 2.47 1.19
4.26 4.29 4.06
3.49
4.03
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Prompt accessibility (7/24
hours a day)
Desktop availability Free access Multiuser access F4 Availability and
accessibility
Mea
n S
core
110
Fig.25: Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources
5.4.8 Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources network
The attempt was made to know the strength in accessing INDEST E-Resources
networks by the faculty of to seven IITs shown in the table 5.4.8 and figure 26
provides the details of the mean value and Standard Deviation for the three attributes
of ‘Strength in accessing network’. ‘Accuracy’ has the highest mean value of 4.01 and
the Standard Deviation is 0.82 followed by ‘Credibility’ and ‘Connecting people’ with
mean value of 4 and 3.4 and their respective Standard Deviation is 0.88 and 1.19. ‘F6
Strength in accessing network’ has a mean value of 3.81 and the Standard Deviation is
0.78.
Table 5.4.8: Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources network
S/N Attributes N Mean SD
1 Accuracy 411 4.01 0.82
2 Credibility 411 4.00 0.88
3 Connecting people 411 3.40 1.19
Strength in accessing network 411 3.81 0.78
2.56
2.37
2.47 2.47
2.25
2.30
2.35
2.40
2.45
2.50
2.55
2.60
Difficulty reading computer screens Limitations of computer monitor Often not included in indexing and
abstracting services
F5 Limitation of accessing system
Mea
n S
core
111
Fig.26: Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources network
5.4.9 Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources
The below details shows the expected facilitation in accessing INDEST E-
Resources table 5.4.9 and figure 27 show the mean value and Standard Deviation for
the two attributes of ‘Expected Facilitation’. ‘Requiring special equipment’ has the
highest mean value of 2.18 and the Standard Deviation is 1.16 followed by ‘Requiring
Training’ with mean value of 2.15 and the Standard Deviation is 1.05. ‘F7 Expected
Facilitation’ has a mean value of 2.16 and the Standard Deviation is 1.02.
Table 5.4.9: Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources
S/N Attributes N Mean SD
1 Requiring special equipment 411 2.18 1.16
2 Requiring training 411 2.15 1.05
Expected Facilitation 411 2.16 1.02
Fig. 27: Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources
4.01 4.00
3.40
3.81
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
3.80
3.90
4.00
4.10
Accuracy Credibility Connecting people F6 Strength in accessing
network
Mea
n S
core
2.18
2.15
2.16
2.13
2.14
2.14
2.15
2.15
2.16
2.16
2.17
2.17
2.18
2.18
Requiring special equipment Requiring training F7 Expected Facilitation
Mea
n S
core
112
5.4.10 Core Purposes of using INDEST E-Resources
With regard to the Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources is shown in
table 5.4.10 and figure 28 provides the details of the mean value and Standard
Deviation for the two attributes of ‘Core Purpose’. ‘Teaching’ has represents with the
mean value of 3.89 with a corresponding Standard Deviation is 0.97 followed by
‘Research’ with a highest mean value of 4.77 with a corresponding Standard
Deviation is 0.52. ‘F8 Core purpose’ has a mean value of 4.35 and the Standard
Deviation is 0.64.
Table 5.4.10: Core Purposes of using INDEST E-Resources
S/N Attributes N Mean SD
1 Teaching 411
3.89 0.97
2 Research 411
4.77 0.52
Core purpose 411 4.35 0.64
Fig. 28: Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
5.4.11 Value Addition in accessing INDEST E-Resources
The below Table 5.4.11 and figure 29 provide the details of the mean value
and Standard Deviation for the two attributes of ‘Value addition’. ‘Full text retrieval’
has the highest mean value of 4.44 and the Standard Deviation is 0.76 followed by
‘downloading possibilities’ with mean value of 4.40 and Standard Deviation is 0.67.
‘F9 Value addition’ has an average mean value of 4.42 and the Standard Deviation is
0.66.
3.89
4.77
4.35
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Teaching Research F8 Core purpose
Mea
n S
core
113
Table 5.4.11: Value Addition in accessing INDEST E-Resources
S/N Attributes N Mean SD
1 Downloading possibilities 411 4.40 0.67
2 Full text retrieval 411 4.44 0.76
Value addition 411 4.42 0.66
Fig. 29: Value Addition in accessing INDEST E-Resources
5.4.12 Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources
With regard to the satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources shown in the
table 5.4.12 and figure 30 provides the details of the mean value and Standard
Deviation for the seven attributes of ‘Satisfaction’. The highest mean value is for
‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-Resources’4.15 and the Standard
Deviation are 0.9. ‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the library’ has a
mean value of 4.01 and the Standard Deviation is 0.98 followed by ‘Satisfaction
obtained from using INDEST E-Resources’, ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST
E-Resources in your library’, ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’,
‘How far INDEST E-Resources available in library enable you to meet your needs’
and ‘Back volumes of INDEST E-Resources available in library’ with mean value of
3.96, 3.86, 3.78, 3.78 and 3.58 and their respective Standard Deviation is 0.8, 0.99,
4.40
4.44
4.42
4.38
4.39
4.40
4.41
4.42
4.43
4.44
4.45
Downloading possibilities Full text retrieval F9 Value addition
Mea
n S
core
114
0.99, 1.07 and 1.07 respectively. ‘Satisfaction’ has an average mean value of 3.88 and
the Standard Deviation is 0.85.
Table 5.4.12: Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources
S/N Attributes N Mean SD
1 Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the
library 411 4.01 0.98
2 Subject coverage of available INDEST E-Resources
in your library 411 3.86 0.99
3 Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library 411 3.78 0.99
4 Back volumes of INDEST E-Resources available in
library 411 3.58 1.07
5 How far INDEST E-Resources available in library
enable you to meet your needs 411 3.78 1.07
6 Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-
Resources 411 3.96 0.80
7 Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-
Resources 411 4.15 0.90
Satisfaction 411 3.88 0.85
Fig.30: Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources
4.01
3.86
3.78
3.58
3.78
3.96
4.15
3.88
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
3.80
3.90
4.00
4.10
4.20
RequiredINDEST
E-Resourcessubscribed by the
library
Subject coverage of
available INDESTE-Resources in
your library
Number of
INDEST E-Resources available
in library
Back volumes of
INDEST E-Resources available
in library
How far INDEST
E-Resourcesavailable in library
enable you to meetyour needs
Satisfaction
obtained from usingINDEST E-
Resources
Infrastructure
available to AccessINDEST E-
Resources
Satisfaction
Mea
n S
core
115
5.4.13Summary
This section deals with reliability test for different factors, ways and means of
obtaining and using, skills required, purpose of using, limitation, availability and
accessibility, core purpose and satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources by faculty
members of top seven IITs. ‘Satisfaction’ has the highest Cronbach's Alpha value and
‘F6 Strength in accessing network’ has the lowest Cronbach’s Alpha value.(Table
5.4.1), The cumulative variance extracted is 77.06%. The sums of square of all the
variables in given factors are called the Eigen values. If Eigen value is greater than 1,
it becomes factor. In similar pattern, sum of square of a variable across factors are
called communalities. As a threshold level, communalities should be greater than
5.The 32 variables in the data were reduced to 9 factor models and each factor was
identified and named with the corresponding variables as shown in the above table.
The factors are Basic Advantages; Disadvantages; Augmented Purpose; Availability
and accessibility; Limitation of accessing system; Strength in accessing network;
Expected Facilitation; Core purpose and Value addition. (Table 5.4.2) ‘Search
ability/search capabilities’ have highest mean value 4.31 and the Standard Deviation is
0.79 followed by ‘Convenience. Basic Advantages’ has a mean value of 4.28 and the
Standard Deviation is 0.66(Table 5.4.3). ‘Lack of Standardized formats’ has the
highest mean value of 2.55 and Standard Deviation is 1.2 and ‘Search engines ignores
PDF files’ has the lowest mean value of 2.04 and the SD is 1.06. The mean value and
Standard Deviation for ‘Disadvantages’ is 2.28 and 0.92 (Table 5.4.4). ‘To be up-to-
date in the subject’ has the highest mean value of 4.42 and the SD is 0.93 and
‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc has the lowest mean value of4.08 and the SD
is 0.97. Augmented Purpose’ has a mean value of 4.24 and the SD is 0.75 (Table
5.4.5). ‘Desktop availability’ has the highest mean value of 4.29 and Standard
Deviation is 0.98 and ‘Multiuser access’ has the lowest mean value of 3.49 and the SD
is 1.24. F4 Availability and Accessibility’ has a mean value of 4.03 and the Standard
Deviation is 0.86 (Table 5.4.6). ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’ has the highest
mean value of 2.56 and the Standard Deviation is 1.35 and ‘Limitation of accessing
system’ has a mean value of 2.47 and the Standard Deviation is 1.19.(Table 5.4.7)
‘Accuracy’ has the highest mean value of 4.01 and the Standard Deviation is 0.82 and
‘Strength in accessing network’ has a mean value of 3.81 and the Standard Deviation
is 0.78.(Table 5.4.8) ‘Requiring special equipment’ has the highest mean value of 2.18
116
and the Standard Deviation is 1.16 and ‘Expected Facilitation’ has a mean value of
2.16 and the Standard Deviation is 1.02.(Table 5.4.9) ‘Research’ with a highest mean
value of 4.77 with a corresponding Standard Deviation is 0.52. ‘Core purpose’ has a
mean value of 4.35 and the Standard Deviation is 0.64.(Table 5.4.10) Full text
retrieval’ has the highest mean value of 4.44 and the Standard Deviation is 0.76 and
‘Value addition’ has an average mean value of 4.42 and the Standard Deviation is
0.66.(Table 5.4.11) The highest mean value is for ‘Infrastructure available to Access
INDEST E-Resources’4.15 and the Standard Deviation are 0.9 and Satisfaction’ has
an average mean value of 3.88 and the Standard Deviation is 0.85. (Table 5.4.12)
117
SECTION 5
IMPORTANCE OF INDEST E-RESOURCES
5.5.0 Introduction
Section 5 deals with Importance of INDEST E-Resources; Reading pattern of
INDEST E-Resources by IIT faculty; INDEST E-Resources Availability to the faculty
of top seven IITs.
5.5.1 Importance of INDEST E-Resources
The below Table 5.5.1 and figure 31 provide the details of the mean value and
Standard Deviation for the two attributes of ‘Importance’. ‘Do you think that the
information content of INDEST E-Resources is useful’ has a mean value of 4.58 and
the Standard Deviation is 0.74 followed by ‘Importance of the INDEST E-Resources
for your research’ with mean value of 4.57 and Standard Deviation is 0.74.
‘Importance’ has a mean value of 4.58 and the Standard Deviation is 0.71.
Table 5.5.1: Importance of INDEST E-Resources
S/N Attributes N Mean SD
1 Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for your
research 411 4.57 0.74
2 Do you think that the information content of INDEST E-
Resources is useful 411 4.58 0.74
Importance 411 4.58 0.71
Figure 31 Importance of INDEST E-Resources
4.57
4.58
4.58
4.57
4.57
4.57
4.57
4.57
4.57
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for your
research
Do you think that the information content of
INDEST E-Resources is useful
Importance
Mea
n S
core
118
5.5.2 Reading pattern of INDEST E-Resources by IIT faculty
The reading pattern of INDEST E-Resources journals by faculty of top seven
IIT’s shown in table 5.5.2 and graph32 provide the details of the mean value and SD
for the two attributes of ‘Read Electronic and Read Print’. Read Electronic has the
highest mean value of 4.20 and the SD is 0.89. Read Print mean value is 3.23 and the
SD is 1.16.
Table 5.5.2: Reading pattern of INDEST journals by IIT faulty
S/N Attributes N Mean SD
1 Read electronic(on monitor) 411 4.20 0.89
2 Read print out 411 3.23 1.16
Figure 32Reading patterns of INDEST journals by IIT faulty
5.5.3 INDEST E-Resources Availability
The availability of INDEST E-Resources used by faculty of IIT’s shown in
table 5.5.3 provides the mean value and the standard deviation for thirty three
attributes. ‘Elsevier Science Direct’ has the highest mean value of 4.3 and SD is 1.14,
‘Springer Link’ has the second highest mean value of 3.74 and SD is 1.29, ‘Scopus
Database’ has the third highest mean value of 3.73 and SD is 1.28, ‘Taylor and
Francis’ has the fourth highest mean value of 3.41 and SD is 1.24 , followed by ‘Web
of Science’, ‘IEEE/IEE Electronic Library Online (IEL)’ with mean value of 3.74,
Read electronic(on monitor) Read print out
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
119
3.73, 3.41, 3.3 and 2.88 and the SD is 1.29, 1.28, 1.25, 1.4 and 1.62 respectively. The
mean value and SD for ‘JSTOR Through NME-ICT Project’ is 2.8 and 1.43 followed
by ‘Nature’, ‘SciFinder Scholar’, ‘AIP Journals’, ‘APS Journals’ and ‘ASME Journals
( + A M R)’ with mean value of 2.74, 2.72, 2.52, 2.5 and 2.39 and their respective SD
is 1.4, 1.47, 1.47, 1.57 and 1.52 respectively. The mean values for ‘ASCE Journals’,
‘Indian Standards’, ‘Annual Review’, ‘COMPENDEX on EI Village’, ‘Emerald Full-
text’ and ‘EBSCO Databases’ is 2.26, 2.26, 2.25, 2.14, 2.13 and 2.1; their respective
SD is 1.57, 1.49, 1.34, 1.3, 1.47 and 1.44. The mean value for ‘IET Digital Library’ is
2.1 and SD is 1.41 followed by ‘ACM Digital Library’, ‘INSPEC on EI Village’, ‘J-
Gate Custom Content for Consortia (JCCC)’, ‘McGraw Hill’s Access Engineering’,
‘Optical Society of America’ and ‘ProQuest Science (formerly ASTP)’ with mean
value of 2.09, 1.94, 1.91, 1.87, 1.78 and 1.77 their respective SD is 1.45, 1.35, 1.29,
1.06, 1.31 and 1.22. The mean value for ‘INSIGHT ‘ is 1.71 and SD is 1.13 followed
by ‘MathSciNet’, ‘IEC Standards’, ‘ICE+ Thomas Telford’, ‘ABI / Inform Complete’,
‘Euromonitor (GMID)’, ‘Capitaline’ and ‘CRIS INFAC Ind. Information’ with mean
value of 1.67, 1.57, 1.55, 1.51, 1.29, 1.26 and 1.21 and SD is 1.08, 1.08, 1.16, 1.05,
0.78, 0.69 and 0.59 respectively.
Table 5.5.3: INDEST E-Resources Availability
S/N Items N=411
Mean SD
1 Elsevier Science Direct 4.3 1.14
2 Springer Link 3.74 1.29
3 Scopus Database 3.73 1.28
4 Taylor and Francis 3.41 1.24
5 Web of Science 3.3 1.4
6 IEEE/IEE Electronic Library Online (IEL) 2.88 1.62
7 JSTOR Through NME-ICT Project 2.8 1.43
8 Nature 2.74 1.4
9 SciFinder Scholar 2.72 1.47
10 AIP Journals 2.52 1.47
11 APS Journals 2.5 1.57
12 ASME Journals ( + A M R ) 2.39 1.52
13 ASCE Journals 2.26 1.57
120
14 Indian Standards 2.26 1.49
15 Annual Review 2.25 1.34
16 COMPENDEX on EI Village 2.14 1.3
17 Emerald Full-text 2.13 1.47
18 EBSCO Databases 2.1 1.44
19 IET Digital Library 2.1 1.41
20 ACM Digital Library 2.09 1.45
21 INSPEC on EI Village 1.94 1.35
22 J-Gate Custom Content for Consortia
(JCCC) 1.91 1.29
23 McGraw Hill’s Access Engineering 1.87 1.06
24 Optical Society of America 1.78 1.31
25 ProQuest Science ( formerly ASTP ) 1.77 1.22
26 INSIGHT 1.71 1.13
27 MathSciNet 1.67 1.08
28 IEC Standards 1.57 1.08
29 ICE+ Thomas Telford 1.55 1.16
30 ABI / Inform Complete 1.51 1.05
31 Euromonitor (GMID) 1.29 0.78
32 Capitaline 1.26 0.69
33 CRIS INFAC Ind. Information 1.21 0.59
5.5.4 Summary
This section deals with Importance of INDEST E-Resources, reading pattern
of INDEST E-Resources, INDEST E-Resources Availability to the faculty of top
seven IITs. The summary of section 5.5 indicates that Importance of INDEST has a
mean value of 4.58 and the Standard Deviation is 0.71. (Table 5.5.1), Read Electronic
has the highest mean value of 4.20 and the SD is 0.89 (Table 5.5.2), Elsevier Science
Direct has the highest mean value of 4.3 and SD is 1.14(Table 5.5.3)
121
SECTION 6
IIT WISE USE OF INDEST E-RESOURCES BY FACULTY OF IITs
5.6.0 Introduction
This section 6 deals with the testing of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Basic
Advantages, Disadvantages, Augmented Purpose, Availability and Accessibility,
Limitation of Accessing, Strength in Accessing, Expected Facilitation, Core Purpose,
Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance, Reading pattern, in accessing/using
INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs.
Hypothesis - I
Ho: There is no significant difference on Perception on INDEST usage Vs faculty
members of IITs
Ha: There is significant difference on Perception of INDEST usage Vs faculty
members of IITs
5.6.1 IIT wise Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources
To prove the hypothesis, ANOVA is used, it is a mean based statistical test,
used for testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent
variable and more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words,
to understand statistical significance differences between or among two or more
groups or level of independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the five
attributes of Basic Advantage that are the dependent variables such as ‘User-friendly
interface’, ‘Retrieval possibilities’, ‘Search ability/search capabilities’, ‘Currency (Up-
to-date information)’ and ‘Convenience’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on the place of the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’,
‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT Roorkee’) which are
Independent variables.
The basic advantages in using INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of top
seven Indian Institutes of Technology is shown in table 5.6.1 shows the perception of
the respondents categorized based on the place of IIT. The average score of ‘User-
friendly interface’ given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.12, IIT Bombay
is 4.34, IIT Madras is 4.19, IIT Kanpur is 3.85, IIT Delhi is 4.32, IIT Guwahati is 4.41
and IIT Roorkee is 4.41. The F value is 2.884 and significant value is 0.009 since it is
<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘User-friendly interface’
does impact across the different level of the IIT.
122
To ascertain the impact of ‘Retrieval possibilities’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on the place of the IIT. The average score given by the
respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 3.95, IIT Bombay is 4.48, IIT Madras is 4.06, IIT
Kanpur is 3.74, IIT Delhi is 4.53, IIT Guwahati is 4.33 and IIT Roorkee is 4.25. The F
value is 6.048 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that respondents from different IIT seem to perceive in
different ways with regard to ‘Retrieval possibilities’.
The mean value for ‘Searchability/search capabilities’ given by the
respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.23, IIT Bombay is 4.35, IIT Madras is 4.21, IIT
Kanpur is 4.1, IIT Delhi is 4.56, IIT Guwahati is 4.31 and IIT Roorkee is 4.47. The F
value is 1.575 and significant value is 0.153 since it is >.05 the mean difference
existing between respondents of different IIT is statistically not significant at 5%
level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome
based on ‘Searchability/search capabilities’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Currency (Up-to-date
information)’ as given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.26, IIT Bombay is
4.46, IIT Madras is 4.17, IIT Kanpur is 4.45, IIT Delhi is 4, IIT Guwahati is 4.15 and
IIT Roorkee is 4.41. The F value is 2.506 and significant value is 0.022 since it is <.05
the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Currency (Up-to-date
information)’ does impact on the whole across the group categorized based on the
place of IIT.
The average score of ‘Convenience’ given by the respondents from IIT
Kharagpur is 4.12, IIT Bombay is 4.63, IIT Madras is 4.21, IIT Kanpur is 4.03, IIT
Delhi is 4.68, IIT Guwahati is 4.2 and IIT Roorkee is 4.03. The F value is 6.228 and
significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that ‘Convenience’ does impact across the different place of IIT.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Basic Advantages’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on the place of the IIT. The average score for ‘Basic
Advantages’ as given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.13, IIT Bombay is
4.45, IIT Madras is 4.18, IIT Kanpur is 4.05, IIT Delhi is 4.42, IIT Guwahati is 4.28
and IIT Roorkee is 4.31. The F value is 2.766 and significant value is 0.012 since it is
<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that respondents of different IIT
seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Basic Advantages’.
123
Table 5.6.1: IIT wise Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources
Name of the IIT
IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
S/N N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34 F
value
P
value
1 User-friendly
interface
Mean 4.12 4.34 4.19 3.85 4.32 4.41 4.41 2.884 0.009*
SD 0.79 0.64 0.79 1.09 0.64 0.73 0.8
2 Retrieval
possibilities
Mean 3.95 4.48 4.06 3.74 4.53 4.33 4.25 6.048 0.000*
SD 0.9 0.62 0.8 1.12 0.71 0.8 0.8
3 Searchability/
search capabilities
Mean 4.23 4.35 4.21 4.1 4.56 4.31 4.47 1.575 0.153
SD 0.81 0.63 0.83 1.22 0.7 0.69 0.8
4 Currency (Up-to-
date information)
Mean 4.26 4.46 4.17 4.45 4 4.15 4.41 2.506 0.022*
SD 0.76 0.52 0.83 0.87 0.97 0.91 0.8
5 Convenience Mean 4.12 4.63 4.21 4.03 4.68 4.2 4.03
6.228 0.000* SD 0.7 0.61 0.83 1.17 0.59 0.75 0.86
6 Basic Advantages Mean 4.13 4.45 4.18 4.05 4.42 4.28 4.31
2.766 0.012 SD 0.61 0.49 0.72 0.91 0.63 0.6 0.72
*Significant at 5% level
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR=
IIT Roorkee
124
5.6.2 IIT wise Disadvantages in accessing INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the five attributes of
Disadvantage that are the dependent variables such as ‘Perishable citation’ , ‘Format
that a large proportion of e-journal use’, ‘Lack of standardized formats’,
‘Authenticity’ and ‘Search engines ignores PDF files’ are computed to understand the
perception of respondents classified based on the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’,
‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT Roorkee’) which are
Independent variables.
The table 5.6.2 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the IIT. The average score of ‘Perishable citation’ given by the respondents from IIT
Kharagpur is 2.61, IIT Bombay is 2.62, IIT Madras is 2.51, IIT Kanpur is 2.1, IIT
Delhi is 2.03, IIT Guwahati is 1.94 and IIT Roorkee is 1.94. The F value is 5.105 and
significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that ‘Perishable citation’ does impact across the different place of the IIT.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal use’ in
the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score
given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 2.86, IIT Bombay is 2.67, IIT Madras
is 2.44, IIT Kanpur is 2.16, IIT Delhi is 1.93, IIT Guwahati is 2 and IIT Roorkee is
1.77. The F value is 7.605 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean
difference is significant which implies that respondents from different IIT seem to
perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal
use’.
The mean value for ‘Lack of standardized formats’ given by the respondents
from IIT Kharagpur is 2.86, IIT Bombay is 2.82, IIT Madras is 2.9, IIT Kanpur is
2.61, IIT Delhi is 2.06, IIT Guwahati is 2.12 and IIT Roorkee is 1.69. The F value is
8.323 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing
between respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows
125
that a significant effect is evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Lack of
standardized formats’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Authenticity’ as given
by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 2.55, IIT Bombay is 2.33, IIT Madras is
2.16, IIT Kanpur is 2.1, IIT Delhi is 2.03, IIT Guwahati is 2.07 and IIT Roorkee is
2.09. The F value is 1.318 and significant value is 0.248 since it is >.05 the mean
difference is not significant which implies that ‘Authenticity’ does not impact across
the different IIT.
The average score of ‘Search engines ignores PDF files’ given by the
respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 2.1, IIT Bombay is 2.27, IIT Madras is 2.13, IIT
Kanpur is 2.45, IIT Delhi is 2.06, IIT Guwahati is 1.48 and IIT Roorkee is 1.77. The F
value is 5.247 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that ‘Search engines ignores PDF files’ does impact across
the different IIT.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Disadvantages’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score for ‘Disadvantages’ as
given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 2.59, IIT Bombay is 2.54, IIT Madras
is 2.43, IIT Kanpur is 2.28, IIT Delhi is 2.04, IIT Guwahati is 1.84 and IIT Roorkee is
1.9. The F value is 6.704 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean
difference is significant which implies that respondents of different IIT seem to
perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Disadvantages’.
126
Table 5.6.2: IIT wise Disadvantages in accessing INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Name of the IIT F
value
P
value IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34
1 Perishable citation Mean 2.61 2.62 2.51 2.1 2.03 1.94 1.94 5.105 0.000*
SD 1.2 1.04 1 1.04 0.77 0.92 1.16
2
Format that a large
proportion of e-
journal use
Mean 2.86 2.67 2.44 2.16 1.93 2 1.77 7.605 0.000*
SD 1.12 0.99 1.04 0.97 0.7 0.84 0.95
3
Lack of
standardized
Formats
Mean 2.86 2.82 2.9 2.61 2.06 2.12 1.69 8.323 0.000*
SD 1.28 1.06 1.09 1.33 0.93 1.29 1
4 Authenticity Mean 2.55 2.33 2.16 2.1 2.03 2.07 2.09
1.318 0.248 SD 0.97 1.2 0.88 1.19 0.98 1.34 1.12
5 Search engines
ignores PDF files
Mean 2.1 2.27 2.13 2.45 2.06 1.48 1.77 5.247 0.000*
SD 0.91 1.07 1.06 1.46 0.75 0.85 1.02
6 Disadvantages Mean 2.59 2.54 2.43 2.28 2.04 1.84 1.9
6.704 0.000* SD 0.97 0.89 0.83 1.07 0.66 0.81 1.01
*Significant at 5% level
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
127
5.6.3 IIT wise Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the six attributes of
Augmented Purpose that are the dependent variables such as ‘To be up-to-date in the
subject’ , ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’, ‘To get latest facts and statistics’,
‘To know the trends in Technical field’, ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be
competitive in the field’ and ‘To write Articles’ are computed to understand the
perception of respondents classified based on the IITs (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT
Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT Roorkee’)
which are Independent variables.
The table 5.6.3 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the IITs. The average score of ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’ as given by the
respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.38, IIT Bombay is 4.37, IIT Madras is 4.56, IIT
Kanpur is 4.36, IIT Delhi is 4.52, IIT Guwahati is 4.79 and IIT Roorkee is 3.42. The F
value is 9.663 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’ does impact across the
different IITs.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’ in the
perception of the respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score given
by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.24, IIT Bombay is 3.97, IIT Madras is
4.09, IIT Kanpur is 4.09, IIT Delhi is 4.31, IIT Guwahati is 4.35 and IIT Roorkee is
3.29. The F value is 5.429 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean
difference is significant which implies that respondents from different IIT seem to
perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’.
To ascertain the impact of ‘To get latest facts and statistics’ in the perception
of the respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score given by the
respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.36, IIT Bombay is 3.84, IIT Madras is 4.18, IIT
Kanpur is 4.18, IIT Delhi is 4.55, IIT Guwahati is 4.23 and IIT Roorkee is 3.45. The F
value is 5.381 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
128
significant which implies that respondents from different IIT seem to perceive in
different ways with regard to ‘To get latest facts and statistics’.
The mean value for ‘To know the trends in Technical field’ as given by the
respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.1, IIT Bombay is 4.28, IIT Madras is 4.43, IIT
Kanpur is 4.16, IIT Delhi is 4.24, IIT Guwahati is 4.4 and IIT Roorkee is 3.16. The F
value is 6.733 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference
existing between respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at 5% level.
This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘To
know the trends in Technical field’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘To get comprehensive
knowledge and be competitive in the field’ as given by the respondents from IIT
Kharagpur is 4.14, IIT Bombay is 4.36, IIT Madras is 3.87, IIT Kanpur is 4.25, IIT
Delhi is 4.45, IIT Guwahati is 4.68 and IIT Roorkee is 3.19. The F value is 12.261 and
significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in the field’ does
impact across the different IITs.
The average score of ‘To write Articles’ as given by the respondents from IIT
Kharagpur is 4.26, IIT Bombay is 4.32, IIT Madras is 4.43, IIT Kanpur is 4.31, IIT
Delhi is 4.66, IIT Guwahati is 4.35 and IIT Roorkee is 4.5. The F value is 1.257 and
significant value is 0.277 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which
implies that ‘To write Articles’ does not impact across the groups categorized based
on the IIT.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Augmented Purpose’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score for ‘Augmented
Purpose’ as given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.24, IIT Bombay is 4.26,
IIT Madras is 4.26, IIT Kanpur is 4.22, IIT Delhi is 4.46, IIT Guwahati is 4.46 and IIT
Roorkee is 3.53. The F value is 7.203 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the
mean difference is significant which implies that respondents of different IIT seem to
perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Augmented Purpose’.
129
Table 5.6.3 IIT wise Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Name of the IIT F
value
P
value IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34
1 To be up-to-date in the subject Mean 4.38 4.37 4.56 4.36 4.52 4.79 3.42
9.663 0.000* SD 0.54 0.8 0.65 0.82 1 0.48 1.86
2 Preparing for seminars,
workshops etc
Mean 4.24 3.97 4.09 4.09 4.31 4.35 3.29 5.429 0.000*
SD 0.58 0.93 0.7 1.06 1.15 0.86 1.53
3 To get latest facts and statistics Mean 4.36 3.84 4.18 4.18 4.55 4.23 3.45
5.381 0.000* SD 0.73 1.08 0.81 0.95 0.9 0.9 1.5
4 To know the trends in Technical
field
Mean 4.1 4.28 4.43 4.16 4.24 4.4 3.16 6.733 0.000*
SD 0.73 0.81 0.72 1.11 1.25 1.15 1.79
5
To get comprehensive
Knowledge and be competitive
in the field
Mean 4.14 4.36 3.87 4.25 4.45 4.68 3.19 12.261 0.000*
SD 0.68 0.76 0.98 0.95 0.97 0.5 1.69
6 To write Articles Mean 4.26 4.32 4.43 4.31 4.66 4.35 4.5
1.257 0.277 SD 0.49 0.93 0.65 1.06 0.7 0.81 0.51
7 Augmented Purpose Mean 4.24 4.26 4.26 4.22 4.46 4.46 3.53
7.203 0.000* SD 0.49 0.69 0.54 0.82 0.87 0.49 1.29
*Significant at 5% level
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
130
5.6.4 IIT wise Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the five attributes of
Availability and accessibility that are the dependent variables such as ‘Prompt
accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’ , ‘Desktop availability’, ‘Free access’ and ‘Multiuser
access’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based on
the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT
Guwahati’ and ‘IIT Roorkee’) which are Independent variables.
The below table 5.6.4 shows the perception of the respondents categorized
based on the place of IIT. The average score of ‘Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours a
day)’ given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.24, IIT Bombay is 4.51, IIT
Madras is 4.37, IIT Kanpur is 4.47, IIT Delhi is 3.75, IIT Guwahati is 4.57 and IIT
Roorkee is 3.03. The F value is 13.704 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05
the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours
a day)’ does impact across the different level of IIT.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Desktop availability’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on the IITs. The average score given by the
respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.44, IIT Bombay is 4.56, IIT Madras is 4.26, IIT
Kanpur is 4.47, IIT Delhi is 4, IIT Guwahati is 4.59 and IIT Roorkee is 3.03. The F
value is 14.986 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that respondents from different IIT seem to perceive in
different ways with regard to ‘Desktop availability’.
The mean value for ‘Free access’ given by the respondents from IIT
Kharagpur is 4.19, IIT Bombay is 4.32, IIT Madras is 4.17, IIT Kanpur is 4.34, IIT
Delhi is 3.59, IIT Guwahati is 4.15 and IIT Roorkee is 2.91. The F value is 11.281 and
significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between
respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a
significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on free access.
131
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Multiuser access’ as
given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 3.81, IIT Bombay is 3.69, IIT Madras
is 3.76, IIT Kanpur is 3, IIT Delhi is 3.81, IIT Guwahati is 3.02 and IIT Roorkee is
2.88. The F value is 6.177 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean
difference is significant which implies that ‘Multiuser access’ does impact across the
different IIT.
The average score of ‘Availability and accessibility’ given by the respondents
from IIT Kharagpur is 4.17, IIT Bombay is 4.27, IIT Madras is 4.15, IIT Kanpur is
4.08, IIT Delhi is 3.78, IIT Guwahati is 4.11 and IIT Roorkee is 2.96. The F value is
12.934 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant
which implies that ‘Availability and accessibility’ does impact across the different
level of IIT.
132
Table 5.6.4 IIT wise Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Name of the IIT F
value
P
value IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34
1 Prompt accessibility (7/24
hours a day)
Mean 4.24 4.51 4.37 4.47 3.75 4.57 3.03 13.704 0.000*
SD 0.91 0.8 0.92 0.62 1.32 0.56 1.63
2 Desktop availability Mean 4.44 4.56 4.26 4.47 4 4.59 3.03
14.986 0.000* SD 0.93 0.81 0.77 0.57 0.98 0.76 1.49
3 Free access Mean 4.19 4.32 4.17 4.34 3.59 4.15 2.91
11.281 0.000* SD 1.07 0.96 0.72 0.7 0.98 1.11 1.28
4 Multiuser access Mean 3.81 3.69 3.76 3 3.81 3.02 2.88
6.177 0.000* SD 1.18 1.15 1 1.46 0.83 1.4 1.29
5 Availability and
accessibility
Mean 4.17 4.27 4.15 4.08 3.78 4.11 2.96 12.934 0.000*
SD 0.88 0.74 0.69 0.62 0.89 0.57 1.29
*Significant at 5% level
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR=
IIT Roorkee
133
5.6.5 IIT wise Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the three attributes of
‘Limitation of accessing system’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Difficulty
reading computer screens’ , ‘Limitations of computer monitor’ and ‘Often not
included in indexing and abstracting services’ are computed to understand the
perception of respondents classified based on the place of the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’,
‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT
Roorkee’) which are Independent variables.
The table 5.6.5 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the place of IIT. The average score of ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’ given by
the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 3.05, IIT Bombay is 2.56, IIT Madras is 2.59,
IIT Kanpur is 2.16, IIT Delhi is 2.55, IIT Guwahati is 2.31 and IIT Roorkee is 2.66.
The F value is 1.89 and significant value is 0.081 since it is >.05 the mean difference
is not significant which implies that ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’ does not
impact across the different level of IIT.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Limitations of computer monitor’ in the perception
of the respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score given by the
respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 2.32, IIT Bombay is 2.6, IIT Madras is 2.58, IIT
Kanpur is 2.03, IIT Delhi is 2.42, IIT Guwahati is 2.14 and IIT Roorkee is 2.03. The F
value is 1.835 and significant value is 0.091 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not
significant which implies that respondents from different IIT do not seem to perceive
in similar ways with regard to ‘Limitations of computer monitor’.
The mean value for ‘Often not included in indexing and abstracting services’
given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 2.81, IIT Bombay is 2.66, IIT Madras
is 2.54, IIT Kanpur is 2.56, IIT Delhi is 2.91, IIT Guwahati is 1.72 and IIT Roorkee is
2.11. The F value is 5.284 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean
difference existing between respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at
134
5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome
based on ‘Often not included in indexing and abstracting services’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Limitation of
accessing system’ as given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 2.73, IIT
Bombay is 2.6, IIT Madras is 2.56, IIT Kanpur is 2.32, IIT Delhi is 2.63, IIT
Guwahati is 2.08 and IIT Roorkee is 2.22. The F value is 2.267 and significant value
is 0.037 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that
‘Limitation of accessing system’ does impact across the different level of IIT.
135
Table 5.6.5 IIT wise Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Name of the IIT F
value
P
value IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34
1 Difficulty reading
computer screens
Mean 3.05 2.56 2.59 2.16 2.55 2.31 2.66 1.89 0.081
SD 1.45 1.36 1.42 1.13 1.12 1.32 1.33
2 Limitations of computer
monitor
Mean 2.32 2.6 2.58 2.03 2.42 2.14 2.03 1.835 0.091
SD 1.01 1.54 1.4 1.13 1.12 1.34 1.26
3
Often not included in
indexing and abstracting
services
Mean 2.81 2.66 2.54 2.56 2.91 1.72 2.11 5.284 0.000*
SD 1.55 1.09 1.37 1.62 1.66 0.91 1.03
4 Limitation of accessing Mean 2.73 2.6 2.56 2.32 2.63 2.08 2.22
2.267 0.037* SD 1.27 1.11 1.34 1.17 1.15 1.06 0.97
*Significant at 5% level
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
136
5.6.6 IIT wise Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the three attributes of
‘Strength in accessing network’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Accuracy’,
‘Credibility’ and ‘Connecting people’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’,
‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT Roorkee’) which are Independent
variables.
The table 5.6.6 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the IIT. The average score of ‘Accuracy’ given by the respondents from IIT
Kharagpur is 4.35, IIT Bombay is 4.19, IIT Madras is 3.76, IIT Kanpur is 3.67, IIT
Delhi is 4.18, IIT Guwahati is 3.92 and IIT Roorkee is 4.03. The F value is 4.9 and
significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that ‘Accuracy’ does impact across the different level of IIT.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Credibility’ in the perception of the respondents’
categorized based on the IIT. The average score given by the respondents from IIT
Kharagpur is 4.26, IIT Bombay is 4.2, IIT Madras is 3.63, IIT Kanpur is 3.87, IIT
Delhi is 4, IIT Guwahati is 4.08 and IIT Roorkee is 4. The F value is 4.421 and
significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that respondents from different IIT seem to perceive in different ways with
regard to ‘Credibility’.
The mean value for ‘Connecting people’ given by the respondents from IIT
Kharagpur is 3.67, IIT Bombay is 3.55, IIT Madras is 3.03, IIT Kanpur is 2.93, IIT
Delhi is 3.82, IIT Guwahati is 3.29 and IIT Roorkee is 3.77. The F value is 4.372 and
significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between
respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a
significant effect is evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Connecting people’.
137
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Strength in accessing
network’ as given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.1, IIT Bombay is 3.98,
IIT Madras is 3.46, IIT Kanpur is 3.51, IIT Delhi is 4, IIT Guwahati is 3.78 and IIT
Roorkee is 3.94. The F value is 6.305 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the
mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Strength in accessing’ does impact
across the different levels of IIT.
138
Table 5.6.6 IIT wise Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Name of the IIT F
value
P
value IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34
1 Accuracy
Mean 4.35 4.19 3.76 3.67 4.18 3.92 4.03 4.9 0.000*
SD 0.78 0.71 0.64 1.03 0.8 0.97 0.82
2 Credibility
Mean 4.26 4.2 3.63 3.87 4 4.08 4 4.421 0.000*
SD 0.58 0.73 0.85 1.15 1.13 0.81 0.95
3 Connecting people
Mean 3.67 3.55 3.03 2.93 3.82 3.29 3.77 4.372 0.000*
SD 1.2 1.21 1.21 1.14 1.27 0.96 1.02
4
Strength in accessing
network
Mean 4.1 3.98 3.46 3.51 4 3.78 3.94 6.305 0.000*
SD 0.69 0.69 0.7 0.95 0.88 0.68 0.87
*Significant at 5% level
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
139
5.6.7 IIT wise Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of
‘Expected Facilitation’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Requiring special
equipment’ and ‘Requiring training’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’,
‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT Roorkee’) which are Independent
variables.
The below table 5.6.7 shows the perception of the respondents categorized
based on the IIT. The average score of ‘Requiring special equipment’ given by the
respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 2.33, IIT Bombay is 2.35, IIT Madras is 2.33, IIT
Kanpur is 1.94, IIT Delhi is 1.78, IIT Guwahati is 1.93 and IIT Roorkee is 2.22. The F
value is 2.092 and significant value is 0.053 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not
significant which implies that ‘Requiring special equipment’ does not impact across
the different levels of IIT.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Requiring training’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score given by the
respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 1.9, IIT Bombay is 2.34, IIT Madras is 2.48, IIT
Kanpur is 1.84, IIT Delhi is 1.68, IIT Guwahati is 1.98 and IIT Roorkee is 2.19. The F
value is 4.304 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that respondents from different IIT seem to perceive in
different ways with regard to ‘Requiring training’.
The mean value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ given by the respondents from IIT
Kharagpur is 2.1, IIT Bombay is 2.35, IIT Madras is 2.41, IIT Kanpur is 1.89, IIT
Delhi is 1.73, IIT Guwahati is 1.96 and IIT Roorkee is 2.2. The F value is 3.335 and
significant value is 0.003 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between
respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a
significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Expected
Facilitation’.
140
Table 5.6.7 IIT wise Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources `
S/N
Name of the IIT F
value
P
value IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34
1 Requiring special
equipment
Mean 2.33 2.35 2.33 1.94 1.78 1.93 2.22 2.09 0.05
SD 1.48 1.23 1.16 0.89 1.04 0.99 1.07
2 Requiring training Mean 1.9 2.34 2.48 1.84 1.68 1.98 2.19
4.3 0.000* SD 1.14 1.07 1.05 0.9 0.94 0.91 1.03
3 Expected
Facilitation
Mean 2.1 2.35 2.41 1.89 1.73 1.96 2.2 3.34 0.003*
SD 1.26 1.11 0.92 0.85 0.97 0.77 0.99
*Significant at 5% level
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
141
5.6.8 IIT wise Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of ‘Core
purpose’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Teaching ’ and ‘Research’ are
computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based on the IIT (‘IIT
Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’
and ‘IIT Roorkee’) which are Independent variables.
The table 5.6.8 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the IIT. The average score of ‘Teaching’ given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur
is 3.76, IIT Bombay is 4.04, IIT Madras is 3.67, IIT Kanpur is 3.88, IIT Delhi is 3.59,
IIT Guwahati is 3.88 and IIT Roorkee is 4.56. The F value is 4.656 and significant
value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that
‘Teaching’ does impact across the different IIT.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Research’ in the perception of the respondents’
categorized based on the IIT. The average score given by the respondents from IIT
Kharagpur is 4.6, IIT Bombay is 4.82, IIT Madras is 4.8, IIT Kanpur is 4.65, IIT Delhi
is 4.82, IIT Guwahati is 4.83 and IIT Roorkee is 4.78. The F value is 1.468 and
significant value is 0.188 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which
implies that respondents from different IIT seem to perceive in similar ways with
regard to ‘Research’.
The mean value for ‘Core purpose’ given by the respondents from IIT
Kharagpur is 4.2, IIT Bombay is 4.47, IIT Madras is 4.24, IIT Kanpur is 4.26, IIT
Delhi is 4.23, IIT Guwahati is 4.36 and IIT Roorkee is 4.67. The F value is 3.294 and
significant value is 0.004 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between
respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a
significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Core purpose’.
142
Table 5.6.8 IIT wise Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Name of the IIT F
value
P
value IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34
1 Teaching Mean 3.76 4.04 3.67 3.88 3.59 3.88 4.56
4.66 0.000* SD 0.91 0.83 1.08 1.24 0.87 0.92 0.56
2 Research Mean 4.6 4.82 4.8 4.65 4.82 4.83 4.78
1.47 0.19 SD 0.73 0.63 0.4 0.48 0.46 0.38 0.42
3 Core purpose Mean 4.2 4.47 4.24 4.26 4.23 4.36 4.67
3.29 0.004* SD 0.66 0.65 0.68 0.77 0.55 0.53 0.45
*Significant at 5% level
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
143
5.6.9 IIT wise Value Addition in accessing INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of ‘Value
addition’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Downloading possibilities’ and
‘Full text retrieval’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents
classified based on the place of the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’,
‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT Roorkee’) which are Independent
variables.
The below table 5.6.9 shows the perception of the respondents categorized
based on the IIT. The average score for Downloading possibilities given by the
respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.26, IIT Bombay is 4.51, IIT Madras is 4.3, IIT
Kanpur is 4.41, IIT Delhi is 4.38, IIT Guwahati is 4.47 and IIT Roorkee is 4.44. The F
value is 1.145 and significant value is 0.336 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not
significant which implies that ‘Downloading possibilities’ does not impact across the
different IIT.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Full text retrieval’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The average score given by the
respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.23, IIT Bombay is 4.49, IIT Madras is 4.45, IIT
Kanpur is 4.22, IIT Delhi is 4.5, IIT Guwahati is 4.59 and IIT Roorkee is 4.41. The F
value is 1.608 and significant value is 0.143 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not
significant which implies that respondents from different IIT perceive in similar ways
with regard to ‘Full text retrieval’.
The mean value for ‘Value addition’ given by the respondents from IIT
Kharagpur is 4.24, IIT Bombay is 4.5, IIT Madras is 4.38, IIT Kanpur is 4.31, IIT
Delhi is 4.44, IIT Guwahati is 4.52 and IIT Roorkee is 4.42. The F value is 1.201 and
significant value is 0.305 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing between
respondents of different IIT is statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that
a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Value addition’.
144
Table 5.6.9 IIT wise Value Addition in accessing INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Name of the IIT F
value
P
value IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34
1 Downloading
possibilities
Mean 4.26 4.51 4.3 4.41 4.38 4.47 4.44 1.15 0.34
SD 0.49 0.62 0.7 0.91 0.82 0.59 0.67
2 Full text retrieval Mean 4.23 4.49 4.45 4.22 4.5 4.59 4.41
1.61 0.14 SD 1.02 0.62 0.67 1.04 0.75 0.64 0.76
3 Value addition Mean 4.24 4.5 4.38 4.31 4.44 4.52 4.42
1.2 0.31 SD 0.67 0.62 0.61 0.89 0.76 0.58 0.7
*Significant at 5% level
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
145
5.6.10 IIT wise Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the seven attributes of
Satisfaction that are the dependent variables such as ‘Required INDEST E-Resources
subscribed by the library’, ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-Resources in
your library’, ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’, ‘Back volumes
of INDEST E-Resources available in library’, ‘How far INDEST E-Resources
available in library enable you to meet your needs’, ‘Satisfaction obtained from using
INDEST E-Resources’ and ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-Resources’
are computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based on the
place of the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT
Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT Roorkee’) which are Independent variables.
The table 5.6.10 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the IIT. The average score of ‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the
library’ given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.12, IIT Bombay is 4.22, IIT
Madras is 4.16, IIT Kanpur is 4.03, IIT Delhi is 3.3, IIT Guwahati is 4.16 and IIT
Roorkee is 3.34. The F value is 7.636 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the
mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Required INDEST E-Resources
subscribed by the library’ does impact across the different IIT.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-
Resources in your library’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on
the place of the IIT. The average score given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur
is 3.88, IIT Bombay is 4.03, IIT Madras is 3.98, IIT Kanpur is 4.09, IIT Delhi is 3.42,
IIT Guwahati is 3.71 and IIT Roorkee is 3.59. The F value is 2.852 and significant
value is 0.010 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that
respondents from different IIT seem to perceive in different ways with regard to
‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-Resources in your library’.
The mean value for ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’
given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 3.88, IIT Bombay is 4.02, IIT Madras
146
is 3.79, IIT Kanpur is 4.03, IIT Delhi is 3.24, IIT Guwahati is 3.68 and IIT Roorkee is
3.41. The F value is 4.175 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean
difference existing between respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at
5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome
based on ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Back volumes of
INDEST E-Resources available in library’ as given by the respondents from IIT
Kharagpur is 3.72, IIT Bombay is 3.87, IIT Madras is 3.63, IIT Kanpur is 3.78, IIT
Delhi is 3.09, IIT Guwahati is 3.42 and IIT Roorkee is 3.09. The ANOVA F value is
4.362 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant
which implies that ‘Back volumes of INDEST E-Resources available in library’ does
impact across the different IIT.
The average score of ‘How far INDEST E-Resources available in library
enable you to meet your needs’ given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 3.93,
IIT Bombay is 4.03, IIT Madras is 3.84, IIT Kanpur is 4, IIT Delhi is 3.27, IIT
Guwahati is 3.78 and IIT Roorkee is 3.03. The F value is 5.699 and significant value
is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘How far
INDEST E-Resources available in library enable you to meet your needs’ does impact
across the different IIT.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-
Resources’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on the IIT. The
average score for ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-Resources’ as given
by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.05, IIT Bombay is 4.02, IIT Madras is
3.96, IIT Kanpur is 4, IIT Delhi is 3.36, IIT Guwahati is 4.26 and IIT Roorkee is 3.63.
The F value is 6.376 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference
is significant which implies that respondents of different IIT seem to perceive in
different ways with regard to ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-
Resources’.
The average score for Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-Resources
given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.35, IIT Bombay is 4.33, IIT Madras
is 4.21, IIT Kanpur is 3.78, IIT Delhi is 3.64, IIT Guwahati is 4.42 and IIT Roorkee is
3.63. The F value is 7.301 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean
147
difference is significant which implies that ‘Infrastructure available to Access
INDEST E-Resources’ does impact across the different IIT.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Satisfaction’ in the perception of the respondents’
categorized based on the IIT. The average score for ‘Satisfaction’ as given by the
respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 3.99, IIT Bombay is 4.08, IIT Madras is 3.94, IIT
Kanpur is 3.96, IIT Delhi is 3.33, IIT Guwahati is 3.95 and IIT Roorkee is 3.39. The F
value is 5.909 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that respondents of different IIT seem to perceive in
different ways with regard to ‘Satisfaction’.
148
Table 5.6.10 IIT wise Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Name of the IIT F
value
P
value IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34
1 Required INDEST E-Resources
subscribed by the library
Mean 4.12 4.22 4.16 4.03 3.3 4.16 3.34 7.636 0.000*
SD 0.79 0.86 0.95 0.93 1.18 0.92 1
2
Subject coverage of available
INDEST E-Resources in your
library
Mean 3.88 4.03 3.98 4.09 3.42 3.71 3.59 2.852 0.010*
SD 1.03 0.85 1.1 0.93 1.12 0.98 0.71
3 Number of INDEST E-
Resources available in library
Mean 3.88 4.02 3.79 4.03 3.24 3.68 3.41 4.175 0.000*
SD 1 0.82 1.03 0.97 1 0.98 1.04
4 Back volumes of INDEST E-
Resources available in library
Mean 3.72 3.87 3.63 3.78 3.09 3.42 3.09 4.362 0.000*
SD 1.08 1 1.1 1.16 1.04 1 0.89
5
How far INDEST E-Resources
available in library enable you
to meet your needs
Mean 3.93 4.03 3.84 4 3.27 3.78 3.03 5.699 0.000*
SD 0.96 0.96 1.13 0.95 1.04 0.98 1.26
6 Satisfaction obtained from using
INDEST E-Resources
Mean 4.05 4.02 3.96 4 3.36 4.26 3.63 6.376 0.000*
SD 0.69 0.76 0.75 0.92 1.08 0.57 0.75
7 Infrastructure available to
Access INDEST E-Resources
Mean 4.35 4.33 4.21 3.78 3.64 4.42 3.63 7.301 0.000*
SD 0.78 0.83 0.56 1.18 1.22 0.76 1.04
8 Satisfaction Mean 3.99 4.08 3.94 3.96 3.33 3.95 3.39
5.91 0.000* SD 0.81 0.79 0.87 0.8 1.02 0.65 0.85
*Significant at 5% level
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
149
5.6.11 IIT wise Importance of INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of
‘Importance’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Importance of the INDEST E-
Resources for your research’ and ‘Do you think that the information content of
INDEST E-Resources is useful’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on the place of the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’, ‘IIT Bombay’,
‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT Roorkee’) which are
Independent variables.
The below table 5.6.11 shows the perception of the respondents categorized
based on IIT. The average score of ‘Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for your
research’ given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 4.58, IIT Bombay is 4.4, IIT
Madras is 4.57, IIT Kanpur is 4.5, IIT Delhi is 4.73, IIT Guwahati is 4.74 and IIT
Roorkee is 4.59. The F value is 1.716 and significant value is 0.116 since it is >.05 the
mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Importance of the INDEST E-
Resources for your research’ does not impact across the different levels of IIT.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Do you think that the information content of
INDEST E-Resources is useful’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized
based on the IIT. The average score given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is
4.53, IIT Bombay is 4.29, IIT Madras is 4.67, IIT Kanpur is 4.32, IIT Delhi is 4.82,
IIT Guwahati is 4.86 and IIT Roorkee is 4.66. The F value is 5.88 and significant
value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that
respondents from different IIT seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Do
you think that the information content of INDEST E-Resources is useful’.
The mean value for ‘Importance’ given by the respondents from IIT
Kharagpur is 4.56, IIT Bombay is 4.34, IIT Madras is 4.62, IIT Kanpur is 4.42, IIT
Delhi is 4.77, IIT Guwahati is 4.79 and IIT Roorkee is 4.63. The F value is 3.661 and
significant value is 0.002 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between
respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a
significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Importance’.
150
Table 5.6.11 IIT wise Importance of INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Name of the IIT F
value
P
value IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34
1 Importance of the INDEST E-
Resources for your research Mean 4.58 4.4 4.57 4.5 4.73 4.74 4.59
1.72 0.12 SD 0.59 1.01 0.63 0.88 0.57 0.48 0.71
2
Do you think that the information
content of INDEST E-Resources is
useful
Mean 4.53 4.29 4.67 4.32 4.82 4.86 4.66 5.88 0.000*
SD 0.59 0.99 0.61 0.94 0.46 0.4 0.65
3 Importance Mean 4.56 4.34 4.62 4.42 4.77 4.79 4.63
3.66 0.002* SD 0.58 0.95 0.59 0.88 0.47 0.4 0.67
*Significant at 5% level
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR=
IIT Roorkee
151
5.6.12 IIT wise Reading pattern of INDEST E-Resources by IIT faculty
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of Read
electronic (on monitor)’ and ‘Read print out’ are computed to understand the
perception of respondents classified based on the place of the IIT (‘IIT Kharagpur’,
‘IIT Bombay’, ‘IIT Madras’, ‘IIT Kanpur’, ‘IIT Delhi’, ‘IIT Guwahati’ and ‘IIT
Roorkee’) which are Independent variables.
The mean value for ‘Read electronic (on monitor)’ given by the respondents
from IIT Kharagpur is 4.45, IIT Bombay is 4.36, IIT Madras is 4.51, IIT Kanpur is
4.15, IIT Delhi is 4.06, IIT Guwahati is 3.77 and IIT Roorkee is 3.72. The F value is
7.946 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing
between respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows
that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Read electronic
(on monitor)’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Read print out’ as
given by the respondents from IIT Kharagpur is 3.42, IIT Bombay is 3.21, IIT Madras
is 2.85, IIT Kanpur is 3.25, IIT Delhi is 3.13, IIT Guwahati is 3.42 and IIT Roorkee is
3.63. The F value is 2.752 and significant value is 0.013 since it is <.05 the mean
difference is significant which implies that ‘Read print out’ does impact across the
different IIT.
152
Table 5.6.12 IIT wise Reading pattern of INDEST E-Resources by IIT faculty
S/N
Name of the IIT
F
value
P
value IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
N=46 N=102 N=87 N=36 N=36 N=70 N=34
1 Read electronic(on
monitor)
Mean 4.45 4.36 4.51 4.15 4.06 3.77 3.72 7.95 0.000*
SD 0.67 0.89 0.63 1.06 0.5 1.18 0.73
2 Read print out Mean 3.42 3.21 2.85 3.25 3.13 3.42 3.63
2.75 0.013* SD 1.2 1.21 1.06 1.34 1.01 1.12 1.04
*Significant at 5% level
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
153
Fig 33: IIT wise Factors analysis
5.6.13 Summary
This section deals with the testing of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Basic
Advantages, Disadvantages, Augmented Purpose, Availability and Accessibility,
Limitation of Accessing, Strength in Accessing, Expected Facilitation, Core Purpose,
Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance, Reading pattern, in accessing/using
INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs. The summary of section 5.6
indicate that The F value is 2.766 and significant value is 0.012 since it is <.05 the
mean difference is significant which implies that respondents of different IIT seem to
perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Basic Advantages’ (Table 5.6.1), The F
value is 6.704 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that respondents of different IIT seem to perceive in
different ways with regard to ‘Disadvantages’(Table 5.6.2), The F value is 7.203 and
significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that respondents of different IIT seem to perceive in different ways with
regard to ‘Augmented Purpose’(Table 5.6.3),The F value is 12.934 and significant
value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Mea
n S
core
IIT Kharagpur IIT Bombay IIT Madras IIT Kanpur
IIT Delhi IIT Guwahati IIT Roorkee
154
‘Availability and accessibility’ does impact across the different level of IIT (Table
5.6.4), The F value is 2.267 and significant value is 0.037 since it is <.05 the mean
difference is significant which implies that ‘Limitation of accessing system’ does
impact across the different level of IIT (Table 5.6.5), The F value is 6.305 and
significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that ‘Strength in accessing network’ does impact across the different levels of
IIT(Table 5.6.6), F value is 3.335 and significant value is 0.003 since it is <.05 the
mean difference existing between respondents of different IIT is statistically
significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted
outcome based on ‘Expected Facilitation’ (Table 5.6.7), The F value is 3.294 and
significant value is 0.004 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between
respondents of different IIT is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a
significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Core purpose’ (Table
5.6.8), The F value is 1.201 and significant value is 0.305 since it is >.05 the mean
difference existing between respondents of different IIT is statistically not significant
at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted
outcome based on ‘Value addition’(Table 5.6.9), The F value is 5.909 and significant
value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that
respondents of different IIT seem to perceive in different ways with regard to
‘Satisfaction’ (Table 5.6.10), The F value is 3.661 and significant value is 0.002 since
it is <.05 the mean difference existing between respondents of different IIT is
statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on
the targeted outcome based on ‘Importance’. IITs wise faculty use of INDEST E-
Resources(Table 5.6.11), The F value is 7.946 and significant value is 0.00 since it is
<.05 the mean difference existing between respondents of different IIT is statistically
significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted
outcome based on ‘Read electronic (on monitor)’.The F value is 2.752 and significant
value is 0.013 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that
‘Read print out’ does impact across the different place of IIT (Table 5.6.12).
155
SECTION 7
DESIGNATION WISE USING OF INDEST E-RESOURCES BY THE
FACULTY OF IITs
5.7.0 Introduction
This section deals with the testing of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Basic
Advantages, Disadvantages, Augmented Purpose, Availability and Accessibility,
Limitation of Accessing, Strength in Accessing, Expected Facilitation, Core Purpose,
Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance, Print/Read journals, designation wise using
INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs.
Hypothesis - II
Ho: There is no significant difference on Perception of INDEST usage Vs
Designation
Ha: There is significant difference on Perception of INDEST usage Vs Designation.
5.7.1 Designation wise Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the five attributes of
‘Basic Advantages’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘User-friendly interface’,
‘Retrieval possibilities’, ‘Searchability/search capabilities’, ‘Currency (Up-to-date
information)’ and ‘Convenience’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’
and ‘Assistant Professor) which are Independent variables.
The table 5.7.1 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the designation. The average score of ‘User-friendly interface’ given by the
respondents who are Professors is 4.28, Associate Professors is 4.33 and Assistant
Professor is 4.17. The F value is 1.278 and significant value is 0.28 since it is >.05 the
mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘User-friendly interface’ does
impact across different level of designation.
156
To ascertain the impact of ‘Retrieval possibilities’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on their designation. The average score given by the
respondents who are Professors is 4.25, Associate Professor is 4.24 and Assistant
Professor is 4.19. The F value is 0.186 and significant value is 0.831 since it is >.05
the mean difference is not significant which implies that respondents with different
designation perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Retrieval possibilities’.
The mean value for ‘Searchability/search capabilities’ given by the
respondents who are Professors is 4.36, Associate Professors is 4.38 and Assistant
Professor is 4.19. The F value is 2.242 and significant value is 0.108 since it is >.05
the mean difference existing between respondents with different designation is
statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not
evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Searchability/search capabilities’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Currency (Up-to-date
information)’ as given by the respondents who are Professors is 4.36, Associate
Professors is 4.22 and Assistant Professor is 4.21. The F value is 1.446 and significant
value is 0.237 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that
‘Currency (Up-to-date information)’ does not impact across different level of
designation.
The average score of ‘Convenience’ given by the respondents who are
Professors is 4.31, Associate Professors is 4.48 and Assistant Professor is 4.19. The F
value is 3.54 and significant value is 0.030 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that ‘Convenience’ does impact across different level of
designation.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Basic Advantages’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on the Designation. The average score for ‘Basic
Advantages’ as given by the respondents whose designation is ‘Professor’ is 4.32,
Associate Professor is 4.34 and Assistant Professor is 4.18. The F value is 2.11 and
significant value is 0.123 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which
implies that respondents of different designation perceive in similar ways with regard
to ‘Basic Advantages’.
157
Table 5.7.1Designation wise Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Designation
F
value
P
value Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
N=174 N=94 N=143
1 User-friendly
interface
Mean 4.28 4.33 4.17 1.28 0.28
SD 0.82 0.77 0.74
2 Retrieval
possibilities
Mean 4.25 4.24 4.19 0.19 0.83
SD 0.82 0.84 0.84
3 Searchability/search
capabilities
Mean 4.36 4.38 4.19 2.24 0.11
SD 0.8 0.79 0.77
4 Currency (Up-to-
date information)
Mean 4.36 4.22 4.21 1.45 0.24
SD 0.81 0.86 0.74
5 Convenience Mean 4.31 4.48 4.19
3.54 0.030* SD 0.87 0.64 0.81
6 Basic Advantages Mean 4.32 4.34 4.18
2.11 0.12 SD 0.69 0.6 0.66
*Significant at 5% level
5.7.2 Designation wise Disadvantages in accessing INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the five attributes of
‘Disadvantages’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Perishable citation’, ‘Format
that a large proportion of e-journal use’, ‘Lack of standardized formats’,
‘Authenticity’ and ‘Search engines ignores PDF files’ are computed to understand the
perception of respondents classified based on the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate
Professor’ and ‘Assistant Professor) which are Independent variables.
The table 5.7.2 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the designation. The average score of ‘User-friendly interface’ given by the
respondents who are Professors is 4.28, Associate Professors is 4.33 and Assistant
Professor is 4.17. The F value is 1.278 and significant value is 0.28 since it is >.05 the
mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘User-friendly interface’ does
impact across different level of designation.
158
To ascertain the impact of ‘Perishable citation’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on their designation. The average score given by the
respondents who are Professors is 2.42, Associate Professor is 2.37 and Assistant
Professor is 2.2. The F value is 1.662 and significant value is 0.191 since it is >.05 the
mean difference is not significant which implies that respondents with different
designation perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Perishable citation’.
The mean value for ‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal use’ given by
the respondents who are Professors is 2.51, Associate Professors is 2.4 and Assistant
Professor is 2.18. The F value is 3.65 and significant value is 0.027 since it is <.05 the
mean difference existing between respondents with different designation is
statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on
the targeted outcome based on ‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal use’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Lack of standardized
formats’ as given by the respondents who are Professors is 2.43, Associate Professors
is 2.69 and Assistant Professor is 2.58. The F value is 1.366 and significant value is
0.256 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Lack
of standardized formats’ does not impact across different level of designation.
The average score of ‘Authenticity’ given by the respondents who are
Professors is 2.25, Associate Professors is 2.24 and Assistant Professor is 2.14. The F
value is 0.436 and significant value is 0.647 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not
significant which implies that ‘Authenticity’ does not impact across different level of
designation.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Disadvantages’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on the Designation. The average score for
‘Disadvantages’ as given by the respondents whose designation is ‘Professor’ is 2.26,
Associate Professor is 2.36 and Assistant Professor is 2.26. The F value is 0.371 and
significant value is 0.69 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which
implies that respondents of different designation perceive in similar ways with regard
to ‘Disadvantages’.
159
Table 5.7.2 Designation wise Disadvantages in accessing INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Designation
F
value
P
value Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
N=174 N=94 N=143
1 Perishable citation Mean 2.42 2.37 2.2
1.662 0.191 SD 1.17 1.08 0.88
2
Format that a large
proportion of e-journal
use
Mean 2.51 2.4 2.18 3.65 0.027*
SD 1.09 1.1 0.86
3 Lack of standardized
formats
Mean 2.43 2.69 2.58 1.366 0.256
SD 1.2 1.3 1.14
4 Authenticity Mean 2.25 2.24 2.14
0.436 0.647 SD 1.11 1.24 1.02
5 Search engines ignores
PDF files
Mean 1.93 2.07 2.16 1.682 0.187
SD 1.01 1.17 1.04
6 Disadvantages Mean 2.26 2.36 2.26
0.37 0.69 SD 1.01 0.95 0.79
*Significant at 5% level
5.7.3 Designation wise Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the six attributes of
‘Augmented Purpose’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘To be up-to-date in the
subject’, ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’, ‘To get latest facts and statistics’,
‘To know the trends in Technical field’ and ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be
competitive in the field’ and ‘To write Articles’ are computed to understand the
perception of respondents classified based on the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate
Professor’ and ‘Assistant Professor) which are Independent variables.
The below table 5.7.3 shows the perception of the respondents categorized
based on their designation. The average score of ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’
given by the respondents who are Professors is 4.43, Associate Professors is 4.73 and
Assistant Professor is 4.19. The F value is 9.51 and significant value is 0.00 since it is
160
<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘To be up-to-date in the
subject’ does impact across different level of designation.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’ in the
perception of the respondents’ categorized based on their designation. The average
score given by the respondents who are Professors is 4.09, Associate Professor is 4.35
and Assistant Professor is 3.87. The F value is 6.639 and significant value is 0.001
since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that respondents with
different designation seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Preparing for
seminars, workshops etc’.
The mean value for ‘To get latest facts and statistics’ given by the respondents
who are Professors is 4.11, Associate Professors is 4.34 and Assistant Professor is
3.94. The F value is 4.048 and significant value is 0.018 since it is <.05 the mean
difference existing between respondents with different designation is statistically
significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted
outcome based on ‘To get latest facts and statistics’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘To know the trends in
Technical field’ as given by the respondents who are Professors is 4.22, Associate
Professors is 4.49 and Assistant Professor is 3.99. The F value is 5.839 and significant
value is 0.003 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘To
know the trends in Technical field’ has an impact across different levels of
designation.
The average score of ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in
the field’ given by the respondents who are Professors is 4.2, Associate Professors is
4.49 and Assistant Professor is 3.93. The F value is 8.741 and significant value is
0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘To get
comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in the field’ does impact across
different levels of designation.
To ascertain the impact of ‘To write Articles’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on the Designation. The average score for ‘To write
Articles’ as given by the respondents whose designation is ‘Professor’ is 4.33,
Associate Professor is 4.52 and Assistant Professor is 4.36. The F value is 1.966 and
significant value is 0.141 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which
161
implies that respondents of different designation perceive in similar ways with regard
to ‘To write Articles’.
The average score of ‘Augmented Purpose’ given by the respondents who are
Professors is 4.23, Associate Professors is 4.52 and Assistant Professor is 4.07. The F
value is 10.574 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that ‘Augmented Purpose’ does impact across different
levels of designation.
Table 5.7.3 Designation wise Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Designation
F
value
P
value Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
N=174 N=94 N=143
1 To be up-to-date in the
subject
Mean 4.43 4.73 4.19 9.51 0.000*
SD 0.88 0.56 1.1
2
Preparing for
seminars, workshops
etc
Mean 4.09 4.35 3.87 6.64 0.001*
SD 0.91 0.73 1.14
3 To get latest facts and
statistics
Mean 4.11 4.34 3.94 4.05 0.018*
SD 1.03 0.72 1.12
4 To know the trends in
Technical field
Mean 4.22 4.49 3.99 5.84 0.003*
SD 1.06 0.87 1.2
5
To get comprehensive
knowledge and be
competitive in the
field
Mean 4.2 4.49 3.93
8.74 0.000* SD 0.94 0.59 1.22
6 To write Articles Mean 4.33 4.52 4.36
1.97 0.14 SD 0.78 0.66 0.84
7 Augmented Purpose Mean 4.23 4.52 4.07
10.6 0.000* SD 0.68 0.51 0.89
*Significant at 5% level
5.7.4 Designation wise Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the four attributes of
‘Availability and Accessibility’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Prompt
162
accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’, ‘Desktop availability’, ‘Free access’ and ‘Multiuser
access’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based on
the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’ and ‘Assistant Professor) which
are Independent variables.
The table 5.7.4 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the designation. The average score of ‘Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’ given
by the respondents who are Professors is 4.15, Associate Professors is 4.64 and
Assistant Professor is 4.13. The F value is 8.514 and significant value is 0.000 since it
is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Prompt accessibility
(7/24 hours a day)’ does impact across different levels of designation.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Desktop availability’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on their designation. The average score given by the
respondents who are Professors is 4.31, Associate Professor is 4.6 and Assistant
Professor is 4.06. The F value is 8.706 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05
the mean difference is significant which implies that respondents with different
designation seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Desktop availability’.
The mean value for ‘Free access’ given by the respondents who are Professors
is 4.06, Associate Professors is 4.1 and Assistant Professor is 4.03. The F value is 0.13
and significant value is 0.878 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing between
respondents with different designation is statistically not significant at 5% level. This
shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Free
access’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Multiuser access’ as
given by the respondents who are Professors is 3.46, Associate Professors is 3.49 and
Assistant Professor is 3.52. The F value is 0.096 and significant value is 0.908 since it
is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Multiuser access’
does not impact across different levels of designation.
The average score of ‘Availability and accessibility’ given by the respondents
who are Professors is 4.01, Associate Professors is 4.21 and Assistant Professor is
3.94. The F value is 2.756 and significant value is 0.065 since it is >.05 the mean
difference is not significant which implies that ‘Availability and accessibility’ does
not impact across different levels of designation.
163
Table 5.7.4 Designation wise Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-
Resources
S/N
Designation
F
value
P
value Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
N=174 N=94 N=143
1 Prompt accessibility
(7/24 hours a day)
Mean 4.15 4.64 4.13 8.51 0.000*
SD 1 0.66 1.22
2 Desktop availability Mean 4.31 4.6 4.06
8.71 0.000* SD 0.95 0.74 1.1
3 Free access Mean 4.06 4.1 4.03
0.13 0.88 SD 1.07 0.92 1.1
4 Multiuser access Mean 3.46 3.49 3.52
0.1 0.91 SD 1.29 1.26 1.16
5 Availability and
accessibility
Mean 4.01 4.21 3.94 2.76 0.07
SD 0.82 0.64 1.01
*Significant at 5% level
5.7.5Designation wise Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the three attributes of
‘Limitation of accessing system‘ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Difficulty
reading computer screens’, ‘Limitations of computer monitor’ and ‘Often not included
in indexing and abstracting services’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’
and ‘Assistant Professor) which are Independent variables.
The table 5.7.5 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the designation. The average score of ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’ given by
the respondents who are Professors is 2.66, Associate Professors is 2.49 and Assistant
Professor is 2.46. The F value is 0.903 and significant value is 0.406 since it is >.05
the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Difficulty reading computer
screens’ does not impact across different levels of designation.
164
To ascertain the impact of ‘Limitations of computer monitor’ in the perception
of the respondents’ categorized based on their designation. The average score given
by the respondents who are Professors is 2.4, Associate Professor is 2.52 and Assistant
Professor is 2.24. The F value is 1.217 and significant value is 0.297 since it is >.05
the mean difference is not significant which implies that respondents with different
designation perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Limitations of computer
monitor’.
The mean value for ‘Often not included in indexing and abstracting services’
given by the respondents who are Professors is 2.59, Associate Professors is 2.44 and
Assistant Professor is 2.35. The F value is 1.2 and significant value is 0.302 since it is
>.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different designation is
statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not
evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Often not included in indexing and
abstracting services’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Limitation of
accessing system’ as given by the respondents who are Professors is 2.52, Associate
Professors is 2.52 and Assistant Professor is 2.35. The F value is 0.91 and significant
value is 0.403 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that
‘Limitation of accessing system’ does not impact across different levels of
designation.
Table 5.7.5 Designation wise Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Designation
F
value
P
value Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
N=174 N=94 N=143
1 Difficulty reading
computer screens
Mean 2.66 2.49 2.46 0.9 0.41
SD 1.4 1.52 1.14
2 Limitations of
computer monitor
Mean 2.4 2.52 2.24 1.22 0.3
SD 1.33 1.55 1.19
3
Often not included in
indexing and
abstracting services
Mean 2.59 2.44 2.35 1.2 0.3
SD 1.53 1.22 1.18
4 Limitation of
accessing system
Mean 2.52 2.52 2.35 0.91 0.4
SD 1.27 1.33 0.95
*Significant at 5% level
165
5.7.6 Designation wise Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources Network
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the three attributes of
‘Strength in accessing network’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Accuracy’,
‘Credibility’ and ‘Connecting people’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’
and ‘Assistant Professor) which are Independent variables.
The table 5.7.6 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the designation. The average score of ‘Accuracy’ given by the respondents who are
Professors is 3.98, Associate Professors is 4.11 and Assistant Professor is 3.98. The F
value is 0.906 and significant value is 0.405 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not
significant which implies that ‘Accuracy’ does not impact across different levels of
designation.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Credibility’ in the perception of the respondents’
categorized based on their designation. The average score given by the respondents
who are Professors is 3.95, Associate Professor is 4.27 and Assistant Professor is 3.87.
The F value is 6.434 and significant value is 0.002 since it is <.05 the mean difference
is significant which implies that respondents with different designation seem to
perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Credibility’.
The mean value for ‘Connecting people’ given by the respondents who are
Professors is 3.45, Associate Professors is 3.62 and Assistant Professor is 3.2. The F
value is 3.49 and significant value is 0.032 since it is <.05 the mean difference
existing between respondents with different designation is statistically significant at
5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome
based on ‘Connecting people’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Strength in accessing
network’ as given by the respondents who are Professors is 3.8, Associate Professors
are 4.00 and Assistant Professor is 3.68. The F value is 4.607 and significant value is
166
0.011 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Strength in
accessing network’ does impact across different levels of designation.
Table 5.7.6 Designation wise Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Designation
F
value
P
value Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
N=174 N=94 N=143
1 Accuracy Mean 3.98 4.11 3.98
0.91 0.41 SD 0.86 0.85 0.76
2 Credibility Mean 3.95 4.27 3.87
6.43 0.002* SD 0.84 0.8 0.95
3 Connecting people Mean 3.45 3.62 3.2
3.49 0.032* SD 1.11 1.18 1.27
Strength in accessing
Mean 3.8 4 3.68 4.61 0.011*
SD 0.76 0.8 0.78
*Significant at 5% level
5.7.7 Designation wise Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of
‘Expected Facilitation’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Requiring special
equipment’ and ‘Requiring training’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’
and ‘Assistant Professor) which are Independent variables.
The table 5.7.7 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the designation. The average score of ‘Requiring special equipment’ given by the
respondents who are Professors is 2.01, Associate Professors is 2.1 and Assistant
Professor is 2.42. The F value is 4.682 and significant value is 0.010 since it is <.05
the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Requiring special equipment’
does impact across different levels of designation.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Requiring training’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on their designation. The average score given by the
167
respondents who are Professors is 1.99, Associate Professor is 2.11 and Assistant
Professor is 2.35. The F value is 4.408 and significant value is 0.013 since it is <.05
the mean difference is significant which implies that respondents with different
designation seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Requiring training’.
The mean value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ given by the respondents who are
Professors is 2, Associate Professors are 2.11 and Assistant Professor is 2.39. The F
value is 5.435 and significant value is 0.005 since it is <.05 the mean difference
existing between respondents with different designation is statistically significant at
5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome
based on ‘Expected Facilitation’.
Table 5.7.7 Designation wise Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-
Resources
S/N
Designation
F
value
P
value Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
N=174 N=94 N=143
1 Requiring special
equipment
Mean 2.01 2.1 2.42 4.682 0.010*
SD 1.08 1.08 1.29
2 Requiring training Mean 1.99 2.11 2.35
4.408 0.013* SD 1 0.99 1.12
3 Expected
Facilitation
Mean 2 2.11 2.39 5.435 0.005*
SD 0.98 0.98 1.04
*Significant at 5% level
5.7.8 Designation wise Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of ‘Core
purpose’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Teaching’ and ‘Research’ are
computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based on the
Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’ and ‘Assistant Professor) which are
Independent variables.
The table 5.7.8 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the designation. The average score of ‘Teaching’ given by the respondents who are
168
Professors is 3.89, Associate Professors is 3.94 and Assistant Professor is 3.86. The F
value is 0.175 and significant value is 0.839 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not
significant which implies that ‘Teaching’ does not impact across different levels of
designation.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Research’ in the perception of the respondents’
categorized based on their designation, the ANOVA test was conducted. The average
score given by the respondents who are Professors is 4.76, Associate Professor is 4.84
and Assistant Professor is 4.74. The F value is 1.175 and significant value is 0.31
since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that respondents
with different designation seem to perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Research’.
The mean value for ‘Core purpose’ given by the respondents who are
Professors is 4.33, Associate Professors are 4.44 and Assistant Professor is 4.3. The F
value is 1.556 and significant value is 0.212 since it is >05 the mean difference
existing between respondents with different designation is statistically not significant
at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted
outcome based on ‘Core purpose’.
Table 5.7.8 Designation wise Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Designation
F
value
P
value Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
N=174 N=94 N=143
1 Teaching Mean 3.89 3.94 3.86
0.175 0.839 SD 0.83 0.93 1.15
2 Research Mean 4.76 4.84 4.74
1.175 0.31 SD 0.5 0.52 0.55
Core purpose
Mean 4.33 4.44 4.3 1.556 0.212
SD 0.52 0.55 0.8
*Significant at 5% level
5.7.9 Designation wise Value Addition in accessing INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of ‘Value
169
Addition’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Downloading possibilities’ and
‘Full text retrieval’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents
classified based on the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’ and ‘Assistant
Professor) which are Independent variables.
The table 5.7.9 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the designation. The average score of ‘Downloading possibilities’ given by the
respondents who are Professors is 4.42, Associate Professors is 4.45 and Assistant
Professor is 4.35. The F value is 0.86 and significant value is 0.424 since it is >.05 the
mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Downloading possibilities’ does
not impact across different levels of designation.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Full text retrieval’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on their designation. The average score given by the
respondents who are Professors is 4.51, Associate Professor is 4.44 and Assistant
Professor is 4.36. The F value is 1.519 and significant value is 0.22 since it is >.05 the
mean difference is not significant which implies that respondents with different
designation perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Full text retrieval’.
The mean value for ‘Value addition’ given by the respondents who are
Professors is 4.47, Associate Professors is4.44 and Assistant Professor is 4.34. The F
value is 1.428 and significant value is 0.241 since it is >.05 the mean difference
existing between respondents with different designation is statistically not significant
at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted
outcome based on ‘Value addition’.
Table 5.7.9 Designation wise Value Addition in accessing INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Designation
F
value
P
value
R
Sqr Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
N=174 N=94 N=143
1 Downloading
possibilities
Mean 4.42 4.45 4.34 0.86 0.424 0.004
SD 0.69 0.58 0.71
2 Full text
retrieval
Mean 4.51 4.44 4.36 1.519 0.22 0.008
SD 0.81 0.71 0.73
Value
addition
Mean 4.47 4.44 4.34 1.428 0.241 0.007
SD 0.69 0.58 0.68
*Significant at 5% level
170
5.7.10 Designation wise Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the seven attributes of
‘Satisfaction’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Required INDEST E-
Resources subscribed by the library’, ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-
Resources in your library’, ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’,
‘Back volumes of INDEST E-Resources available in library’, ‘How far INDEST E-
Resources available in library enable you to meet your needs’, ‘Satisfaction obtained
from using INDEST E-Resources’ and ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST
E-Resources’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents classified
based on the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’ and ‘Assistant Professor)
which are Independent variables.
The below table 5.7.10 shows the perception of the respondents categorized
based on the designation. The average score of ‘Required INDEST E-Resources
subscribed by the library’ given by the respondents who are Professors is 3.81,
Associate Professors is 4.41 and Assistant Professor is 3.98. The F value is 11.768 and
significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that ‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the library’ does impact
across different levels of designation.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-
Resources in your library’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on
their designation. The average score given by the respondents who are Professors is
3.84, Associate Professor is 4.08 and Assistant Professor is 3.74. The F value is 3.326
and significant value is 0.037 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that respondents with different designation seem to perceive in different ways
with regard to ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-Resources in your library’.
The mean value for ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’
given by the respondents who are Professors is 3.79, Associate Professors is 4.11 and
Assistant Professor is 3.55. The F value is 8.68 and significant value is 0.000 since it
171
is <.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different designation is
statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on
the targeted outcome based on ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Back volumes of
INDEST E-Resources available in library’ as given by the respondents who are
Professors is 3.58, Associate Professors is 3.82 and Assistant Professor is 3.42. The F
value is 3.909 and significant value is 0.021 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that ‘Back volumes of INDEST E-Resources available in
library’ does impact across different levels of designation.
The average score of ‘How far INDEST E-Resources available in library
enable you to meet your needs’ given by the respondents who are Professors is 3.78,
Associate Professors are 4.11 and Assistant Professor is 3.54. The F value is 7.975 and
significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that ‘How far INDEST E-Resources available in library enable you to meet
your needs’ does impact across different levels of designation.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-
Resources’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on the
Designation. The average score for ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-
Resources’ as given by the respondents whose designation is ‘Professor’ is 3.94,
Associate Professor is 4.19 and Assistant Professor is 3.82. The F value is 6.188 and
significant value is 0.002 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that respondents of different designation perceive in different ways with
regard to ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-Resources’.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-
Resources’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on the
Designation. The average score for ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-
Resources’ as given by the respondents whose designation is ‘Professor’ is 4.05,
Associate Professor is 4.36 and Assistant Professor is 4.12. The F value is 3.659 and
significant value is 0.027 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that respondents of different designation perceive in different ways with
regard to ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-Resources’.
172
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Satisfaction’ as given
by the respondents who are Professors is 3.83, Associate Professors are 4.16 and
Assistant Professor is 3.74. The F value is 7.451 and significant value is 0.001 since it
is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Satisfaction’ does impact
across different levels of designation.
Table 5.7.10 Designation wise Satisfaction of using INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Designation
F
value
P
value Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
N=174 N=94 N=143
1
Required INDEST E-
Resources subscribed by the
library
Mean 3.81 4.41 3.98 11.77 0.000*
SD 1.06 0.78 0.93
2
Subject coverage of available
INDEST E-Resources in your
library
Mean 3.84 4.08 3.74 3.326 0.037*
SD 1.04 0.82 1.01
3 Number of INDEST E-
Resources available in library
Mean 3.79 4.11 3.55 8.68 0.000*
SD 1.01 0.77 1.03
4 Back volumes of INDEST E-
Resources available in library
Mean 3.58 3.82 3.42 3.909 0.021*
SD 1.14 0.92 1.05
5
How far INDEST E-Resources
available in library enable you
to meet your needs
Mean 3.78 4.11 3.54 7.975 0.000*
SD 1.08 0.77 1.19
6 Satisfaction obtained from
using INDEST E-Resources
Mean 3.94 4.19 3.82 6.188 0.002*
SD 0.92 0.6 0.73
7 Infrastructure available to
Access INDEST E-Resources
Mean 4.05 4.36 4.12 3.659 0.027*
SD 0.94 0.89 0.85
8 Satisfaction Mean 3.83 4.16 3.74
7.451 0.001* SD 0.92 0.59 0.86
*Significant at 5% level
5.7.11 Designation wise Importance of INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of
173
‘Importance’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Importance of the INDEST E-
Resources for your research’ and ‘Do you think that the information content of
INDEST E-Resources is useful’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’
and ‘Assistant Professor) which are Independent variables.
The table 5.7.11 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the Designation. The average score of ‘Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for
your research’ given by the respondents who are Professors is 4.58, Associate
Professors is 4.66 and Assistant Professor is 4.5. The F value is 1.191 and significant
value is 0.305 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that
‘Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for your research’ does not impact across
different levels of designation.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Do you think that the information content of
INDEST E-Resources is useful’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized
based on their designation. The average score given by the respondents who are
Professors is 4.56, Associate Professor is 4.65 and Assistant Professor is 4.55. The F
value is 0.531 and significant value is 0.588 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not
significant which implies that respondents with different designation perceive in
similar ways with regard to ‘Do you think that the information content of INDEST E-
Resources is useful’.
The mean value for ‘Importance’ given by the respondents who are Professors
is 4.57, Associate Professors are 4.66 and Assistant Professor is 4.53. The F value is
0.886 and significant value is 0.413 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing
between respondents with different designation is statistically not significant at 5%
level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome
based on ‘Importance’.
174
Table 5.7.11 Designation wise Importance of INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Designation
F
value
P
value Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
N=174 N=94 N=143
1 Importance of the INDEST E-
Resources for your research
Mean 4.58 4.66 4.5 1.191 0.305
SD 0.9 0.58 0.61
2
Do you think that the
information content of
INDEST E-Resources is
useful
Mean 4.56 4.65 4.55
0.531 0.588 SD 0.9 0.55 0.64
Importance
Mean 4.57 4.66 4.53 0.886 0.413
SD 0.88 0.52 0.56
*Significant at 5% level
5.7.12 Designation wise reading pattern of INDEST E-Resources by faculty
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of
‘Reading pattern’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Read electronic(on
monitor)’ and ‘Read print out’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on the Designation (‘Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’
and ‘Assistant Professor) which are Independent variables.
The table 5.7.12 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the Designation. The mean value for ‘Read electronic (on monitor)’ given by the
respondents who are Professors is 4.07, Associate Professors is 4.34 and Assistant
Professor is 4.25. The F value is 3.063 and significant value is 0.048 since it is <.05
the mean difference existing between respondents with different designation is
statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on
the targeted outcome based on ‘Read electronic (on monitor)’.
The mean value for ‘Read print out’ given by the respondents who are
Professors is 3.46, Associate Professors is 2.81 and Assistant Professor is 3.26. The F
value is 9.437 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference
existing between respondents with different designation is statistically significant at
175
5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome
based on ‘Read print out’.
Table 5.7.12 Designation wise Read pattern of INDEST E-Resources by faulty
S/N
Designation
F
value
P
value Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
N=174 N=94 N=143
1 Read electronic(on
monitor)
Mean 4.07 4.34 4.25 3.063 0.048
SD 0.99 0.85 0.79
2 Read print out Mean 3.46 2.81 3.26
9.437 0.000* SD 1.16 1.27 1.01
*Significant at 5% level
Fig. 34: Designation wise Factors analysis
5.7.13 Summary
This section deals with the testing of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Basic
Advantages, Disadvantages, Augmented Purpose, Availability and Accessibility,
Limitation of Accessing, Strength in Accessing, Expected Facilitation, Core Purpose,
Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance, Reading pattern with designation wise using
INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs. The summary of section 5.7
indicate that the F value is 2.11 and significant value is 0.123 since it is >.05 the mean
difference is not significant which implies that respondents of different designation
perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Basic Advantages’ (Table 5.7.1), The F value
is 0.371 and significant value is 0.69 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Mea
n S
core
Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor
176
significant which implies that respondents of different designation perceive in similar
ways with regard to ‘Disadvantages’ (Table 5.7.2), The F value is 10.574 and
significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that ‘Augmented Purpose’ does impact across different levels of designation
(Table 5.7.3), The F value is 2.756 and significant value is 0.065 since it is >.05 the
mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Availability and accessibility’
does not impact across different levels of designation (Table 5.7.4), The F value is
0.91 and significant value is 0.403 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not
significant which implies that ‘Limitation of accessing system’ does not impact across
different levels of designation (Table 5.7.5), The F value is 4.607 and significant value
is 0.011 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Strength
in accessing network’ does impact across different levels of designation(Table
5.7.6),The F value is 5.435 and significant value is 0.005 since it is <.05 the mean
difference existing between respondents with different designation is statistically
significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted
outcome based on ‘Expected Facilitation’ (Table 5.7.7), The F value is 1.556 and
significant value is 0.212 since it is >05 the mean difference existing between
respondents with different designation is statistically not significant at 5% level. This
shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on Core
purpose (Table 5.7.8), The F value is 1.428 and significant value is 0.241 since it is
>.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different designation is
statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not
evident on the targeted outcome based on Value addition (Table 5.7.9), The F value is
7.451 and significant value is 0.001 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant
which implies that ‘Satisfaction’ does impact across different levels of designation
(Table 5.7.10), The F value is 0.886 and significant value is 0.413 since it is >.05 the
mean difference existing between respondents with different designation is
statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not
evident on the targeted outcome based on Importance (Table 5.7.11), The F value is
9.437 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing
between respondents with different designation is statistically significant at 5% level.
This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on
Read print out (Table 5.7.12).
177
SECTION 8
AGE WISE USE OF INDEST E-RESOURCES BY THE FACULTY OF IITs
5.8.0 Introduction
This section deals with the testing of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Basic
Advantages, Disadvantages, Augmented Purpose, Availability and Accessibility,
Limitation of Accessing, Strength in Accessing, Expected Facilitation, Core Purpose,
Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance and Read Pattern of IIT Faculty by age wise
using INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IIT’s.
Hypothesis III
Ho: There is no significant difference on Perception on INDEST usage Vs Age.
Ha: There is significant difference on Perception on INDEST usage Vs Age.
5.8.1 Age in Years Vs Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the five attributes of ‘Basic
Advantages’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘User-friendly interface’ ,
‘Retrieval possibilities’, ‘Searchability/search capabilities’, ‘Currency (Up-to-date
information)’ and ‘Convenience’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55
years’ and ‘>56’ which are Independent variables.
The table 5.8.1 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the age. The average score of ‘User-friendly interface’ given by the respondents
whose age is ’25 to 35 years’ is 4.08, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.31, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.24
and ‘>56 years’ is 4.32. The F value is 1.651 and significant value is 0.177 since it is
>.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘User-friendly interface’
does not impact across different age group.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Retrieval possibilities’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on their age. The average score given by the
respondents whose age group is from’25 to 35 years’ is 4.03, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.27,
178
’46 to 55 years’ is 4.25 and ‘>56’ is 4.29. The F value is 1.711 and significant value
is 0.164 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that
respondents of different age group seem to perceive in similar ways with regard to
‘Retrieval possibilities’.
The mean value for ‘Searchability/search capabilities’ given by the
respondents of age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 4.12, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.35, ’46 to 55
years’ is 4.44 and ‘>56 years’ is 4.25. The F value is 2.511 and significant value is
0.058 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing between respondents of different
age group is statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant
effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Searchability/search
capabilities’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Currency (Up-to-date
information)’ as given by the respondents of the age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 4.23,
’36 to 45 years’ is 4.23, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.29 and ‘>56 years’ 4.42. The F value is
1.047 and significant value is 0.371 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not
significant which implies that ‘Currency (Up-to-date information)’ does not impact
across different age group.
The average score of ‘Convenience’ given by the respondents of age group’25
to 35 years’ is 4.19, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.35, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.28 and ‘>56 years’ is
4.38. The F value is 0.881 and significant value is 0.451 since it is >.05 the mean
difference is not significant which implies that ‘Convenience’ does not impact across
the groups categorized based on their age.
The average score of ‘Basic Advantages’ given by the respondents of age
group’25 to 35 years’ is 4.12, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.31, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.31 and
‘>56 years’ is 4.34. The F value is 1.855 and significant value is 0.137 since it is >.05
the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Basic Advantages’ does not
impact across the different age group.
179
Table 5.8.1 Age in Years Vs Basic Advantages in using INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Age in Years F
value
P
value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72
1 User-friendly interface Mean 4.08 4.31 4.24 4.32
1.651 0.177 SD 0.84 0.72 0.79 0.82
2 Retrieval possibilities Mean 4.03 4.27 4.25 4.29
1.711 0.164 SD 0.92 0.82 0.79 0.79
3 Searchability/search
capabilities
Mean 4.12 4.35 4.44 4.25 2.511 0.058
SD 0.88 0.74 0.79 0.79
4 Currency (Up-to-date
information)
Mean 4.23 4.23 4.29 4.42 1.047 0.371
SD 0.76 0.83 0.88 0.65
5 Convenience Mean 4.19 4.35 4.28 4.38
0.881 0.451 SD 0.81 0.76 0.75 0.95
Basic Advantages
Mean 4.12 4.31 4.31 4.34 1.855 0.137
SD 0.72 0.6 0.68 0.68
*Significant at 5% level
5.8.2 Age Vs Disadvantages of using INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the five attributes of
‘Disadvantages’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Perishable citation’ ,
‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal use’, ‘Lack of standardized formats’,
‘Authenticity’ and ‘Search engines ignores PDF files’ are computed to understand the
perception of respondents classified based on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45
years’, ’46 to 55 years’ and ‘>56 years’ which are Independent variables.
The table 5.8.2 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the age. The average score of ‘Perishable citation’ given by the respondents whose age
is ’25 to 35 years’ is 2.1, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.33, ’46 to 55 years’ is 2.35 and ‘>56
years’ is 2.57. The F value is 2.361 and significant value is 0.071 since it is >.05 the
mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Perishable citation’ does not
impact across the groups categorized based on their age.
180
To ascertain the impact of ‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal use’ in
the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on their age. The average score
given by the respondents whose age group is from’25 to 35 years’ is 2.18, ’36 to 45
years’ is 2.33, ’46 to 55 years’ is 2.43 and ‘>56’ is 2.56. The F value is 1.829 and
significant value is 0.142 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which
implies that respondents of different age group perceive in similar ways with regard to
‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal use’.
The mean value for ‘Lack of standardized formats’ given by the respondents of
age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 2.44, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.64, ’46 to 55 years’ is 2.38 and
‘>56 years’ is 2.65. The F value is 1.173 and significant value is 0.32 since it is >.05
the mean difference existing between respondents of different age group is statistically
not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the
targeted outcome based on ‘Lack of standardized formats’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Authenticity’ as given
by the respondents of the age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 2.16, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.15,
’46 to 55 years’ is 2.27 and ‘>56 years’ is 2.32. The F value is 0.528 and significant
value is 0.663 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that
‘Authenticity’ does not impact across the different levels of age.
The average score of ‘Search engines ignores PDF files’ given by the
respondents of age group’25 to 35 years’ is 2.19, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.04, ’46 to 55
years’ is 1.87 and ‘>56 years’ is 2.12. The F value is 1.376 and significant value is
0.25 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Search
engines ignores PDF files’ does not impact across the different age groups.
The average score of ‘Disadvantages’ given by the respondents of age
group’25 to 35 years’ is 2.22, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.3, ’46 to 55 years’ is 2.18 and ‘>56
years’ is 2.44. The F value is 1.178 and significant value is 0.318 since it is >.05 the
mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Disadvantages’ does not impact
across the different age groups.
181
Table 5.8.2 Age Vs Disadvantages of using INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Age in Years F
value
P
value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72
1 Perishable citation Mean 2.1 2.33 2.35 2.57
2.361 0.071 SD 0.99 0.96 1.02 1.3
2
Format that a large
proportion of e-
journal use
Mean 2.18 2.33 2.43 2.56 1.829 0.142
SD 0.91 0.99 1.01 1.19
3 Lack of standardized
formats
Mean 2.44 2.64 2.38 2.65 1.173 0.32
SD 1.19 1.25 1.05 1.28
4 Authenticity Mean 2.16 2.15 2.27 2.32
0.528 0.663 SD 1 1.16 1.15 1.07
5 Search engines
ignores PDF files
Mean 2.19 2.04 1.87 2.12 1.376 0.25
SD 1.19 1.07 0.91 1.07
Disadvantages
Mean 2.22 2.3 2.18 2.44 1.178 0.318
SD 0.89 0.86 0.93 1.07
*Significant at 5% level
5.8.3 Age Vs Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the Six attributes of
‘Augmented Purpose’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘To be up-to-date in the
subject’, ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’, ‘To get latest facts and statistics’,
‘To know the trends in Technical field’, ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be
competitive in the field’ and ‘To write Articles’ are computed to understand the
perception of respondents classified based on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45
years’, ’46 to 55 years’ and ‘>56’ which are Independent variables.
The table 5.8.3 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the age. The average score of ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’ given by the
respondents whose age is ’25 to 35 years’ is 4.04, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.59, ’46 to 55
years’ is 4.66 and ‘>56 years’ is 4.17. The F value is 9.973 and significant value is
0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘To be up-
to-date in the subject’ does impact across the different age groups.
182
To ascertain the impact of ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’ in the
perception of the respondents’ categorized based on their age. The average score
given by the respondents whose age group is from’25 to 35 years’ is 3.72, ’36 to 45
years’ is 4.29, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.19 and ‘>56’ is 3.88. The F value is 6.977 and
significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that respondents of different age group seem to perceive in different ways
with regard to ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’.
The mean value for ‘To get latest facts and statistics’ given by the respondents
of age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 3.77, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.34, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.01
and ‘>56 years’ is 4.12. The F value is 5.584 and significant value is 0.001 since it is
<.05 the mean difference existing between respondents of different age group is
statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on
the targeted outcome based on ‘To get latest facts and statistics’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘To know the trends in
Technical field’ as given by the respondents of the age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 3.76,
’36 to 45 years’ is 4.44, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.26 and ‘>56 years’ 4.08. The F value is
7.169 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant
which implies that ‘To know the trends in Technical field’ does impact across the
different age groups.
The average score of ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in
the field’ given by the respondents of age group’25 to 35 years’ is 3.74, ’36 to 45
years’ is 4.39, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.47 and ‘>56 years’ is 3.79. The F value is 13.91
and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in the field’ does
impact across the different age groups.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘To write Articles’ as
given by the respondents of the age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 4.42, ’36 to 45 years’ is
4.46, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.4 and ‘>56 years’ 4.18. The F value is 2.275 and significant
value is 0.079 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that
‘To write Articles’ does not impact across the different age groups.
The average score of ‘Augmented Purpose’ given by the respondents of age
group’25 to 35 years’ is 3.91, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.44, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.34 and
183
‘>56 years’ is 4.03. The F value is 12.03 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05
the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Augmented Purpose’ does
impact across the different age groups.
Table 5.8.3 Age Vs Augmented Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Age in Years F
value
P
value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72
1 To be up-to-date in the
subject
Mean 4.04 4.59 4.66 4.17 9.973 0.000*
SD 1.25 0.67 0.59 1.14
2 Preparing for seminars,
workshops etc
Mean 3.72 4.29 4.19 3.88 6.977 0.000*
SD 1.23 0.83 0.8 1.01
3 To get latest facts and
statistics
Mean 3.77 4.34 4.01 4.12 5.584 0.001*
SD 1.24 0.76 1.1 0.95
4 To know the trends in
Technical field
Mean 3.76 4.44 4.26 4.08 7.169 0.000*
SD 1.29 0.92 0.92 1.23
5
To get comprehensive
knowledge and be
competitive in the field
Mean 3.74 4.39 4.47 3.79 13.91 0.000*
SD 1.37 0.79 0.63 1.09
6 To write Articles Mean 4.42 4.46 4.4 4.18
2.275 0.079 SD 0.82 0.69 0.62 1.02
Augmented Purpose
Mean 3.91 4.44 4.34 4.03 12.03 0.000*
SD 0.97 0.63 0.46 0.85
*Significant at 5% level
5.8.4 Age Vs Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for testing
the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and more
than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the four attributes of
‘Availability and accessibility’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Prompt
accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’, ‘Desktop availability’, ‘Free access’ and ‘Multiuser
access’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based on
their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55 years’ and ‘>56’ which are
Independent variables.
The table 5.8.4shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on the
age. The average score of ‘Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’ given by the
184
respondents whose age is ’25 to 35 years’ is 4.18, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.34, ’46 to 55
years’ is 4.43 and ‘>56 years’ is 3.94. The F value is 3.553 and significant value is
0.015 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Prompt
accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’ does impact across the different age groups.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Desktop availability’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on their age. The average score given by the
respondents whose age group is from’25 to 35 years’ is 4.01, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.35,
’46 to 55 years’ is 4.59 and ‘>56’ is 4.09. The F value is 6.131 and significant value
is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that
respondents of different age group seem to perceive in different ways with regard to
‘Desktop availability’.
The mean value for ‘Free access’ given by the respondents of age group ’25 to 35
years’ is 4.01, ’36 to 45 years’ is 3.88, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.37 and ‘>56 years’ is 4.09.
The F value is 4.348 and significant value is 0.005 since it is <.05 the mean difference
existing between respondents of different age group is statistically significant at 5%
level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based
on ‘Free access’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Multiuser access’ as
given by the respondents of the age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 3.63, ’36 to 45 years’ is
3.45, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.56 and ‘>56 years’ 3.33. The F value is 0.797 and
significant value is 0.496 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which
implies that ‘Multiuser access’ does not impact across the different age groups.
The average score of ‘Availability and accessibility’ given by the respondents of
age group’25 to 35 years’ is 3.96, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.01, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.25 and
‘>56 years’ is 3.86. The F value is 3.102 and significant value is 0.027 since it is <.05
the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Availability and accessibility’
does impact across the different age groups.
185
Table 5.8.4 Age Vs Availability and Accessibility of INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Age in Years F
value
P
value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72
1
Prompt
accessibility (7/24
hours a day)
Mean 4.18 4.34 4.43 3.94 3.553 0.015*
SD 1.21 1 0.74 1.17
2 Desktop
availability
Mean 4.01 4.35 4.59 4.09 6.131 0.000*
SD 1.24 0.88 0.68 1.09
3 Free access Mean 4.01 3.88 4.37 4.09
4.348 0.005* SD 1.23 1.04 0.81 1.03
4 Multiuser access Mean 3.63 3.45 3.56 3.33
0.797 0.496 SD 1.21 1.12 1.31 1.41
Availability and
accessibility
Mean 3.96 4.01 4.25 3.86 3.102 0.027*
SD 1.12 0.77 0.62 0.94
*Significant at 5% level
5.8.5Age Vs Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the three attributes of
‘Limitation of accessing system’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Difficulty
reading computer screens’, ‘Limitations of computer monitor’ and ‘Often not included
in indexing and abstracting services’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55
years’ and ‘>56’ which are Independent variables.
Table 5.8.5 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on the
age. The average score of ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’ given by the
respondents whose age is ’25 to 35 years’ is 2.65, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.22, ’46 to 55
years’ is 3.05 and ‘>56 years’ is 2.57. The F value is 7.682 and significant value is
0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Difficulty
reading computer screens’ does impact across the different age groups.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Limitations of computer monitor’ in the perception
of the respondents’ categorized based on their age. The average score given by the
186
respondents whose age group is from’25 to 35 years’ is 2.35, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.19,
’46 to 55 years’ is 2.6 and ‘>56’ is 2.52. The F value is 2.071 and significant value is
0.104 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that
respondents of different age group seem to perceive in similar ways with regard to
‘Limitations of computer monitor’.
The mean value for ‘Often not included in indexing and abstracting services’
given by the respondents of age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 2.3, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.31,
’46 to 55 years’ is 2.79 and ‘>56 years’ is 2.61. The F value is 3.036 and significant
value is 0.029 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between respondents of
different age group is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant
effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Often not included in indexing
and abstracting services’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Limitation of
accessing system’ as given by the respondents of the age group ’25 to 35 years’ is
2.43, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.26, ’46 to 55 years’ is 2.79 and ‘>56 years’ 2.53. The F
value is 3.918 and significant value is 0.009 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that ‘Limitation of accessing system’ does impact across the
different age groups.
Table 5.8.5 Age Vs Limitation of Accessing INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Age in Years F
value
P
value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72
1 Difficulty reading
computer screens
Mean 2.65 2.22 3.05 2.57 7.682 0.000*
SD 1.24 1.24 1.37 1.45
2 Limitations of
computer monitor
Mean 2.35 2.19 2.6 2.52 2.071 0.104
SD 1.27 1.3 1.24 1.57
3
Often not included in
indexing and
abstracting services
Mean 2.3 2.31 2.79 2.61 3.036 0.029*
SD 1.17 1.24 1.51 1.45
Limitation of
accessing
Mean 2.43 2.26 2.79 2.53 3.918 0.009*
SD 1.03 1.12 1.16 1.41
*Significant at 5% level
5.8.6Age Vs Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources Network
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
187
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the three attributes of
‘Strength in accessing network’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Accuracy’ ,
‘Credibility’ and ‘Connecting people’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55
years’ and ‘>56 years’ which are Independent variables.
The table 5.8.6 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the age. The average score of ‘Accuracy’ given by the respondents whose age is ’25 to
35 years’ is 4, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.02, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.11 and ‘>56 years’ is 3.9.
The F value is 0.875 and significant value is 0.454 since it is >.05 the mean difference
is not significant which implies that ‘Accuracy’ does not impact across the different
age groups.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Credibility’ in the perception of the respondents’
categorized based on their age. The average score given by the respondents whose age
group is from’25 to 35 years’ is 3.87, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.07, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.07
and ‘>56 years’ is 3.9. The F value is 1.305 and significant value is 0.272 since it is
>.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that respondents of different
age group perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Credibility’.
The mean value for ‘Connecting people’ given by the respondents of age
group ’25 to 35 years’ is 3.14, ’36 to 45 years’ is 3.44, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.81 and
‘>56 years’ is 3.12. The F value is 5.816 and significant value is 0.001 since it is <.05
the mean difference existing between respondents of different age group is statistically
significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted
outcome based on ‘Connecting people’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Strength in accessing
network’ as given by the respondents of the age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 3.67, ’36 to
45 years’ is 3.84, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.99 and ‘>56 years’ 3.65. The F value is 3.625
and significant value is 0.013 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that ‘Strength in accessing network’ does impact across the different age
groups.
188
Table 5.8.6 Age Vs Strength in Accessing INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Age in Years F
value
P
value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72
1 Accuracy Mean 4 4.02 4.11 3.9
0.875 0.45 SD 0.72 0.85 0.88 0.81
2 Credibility Mean 3.87 4.07 4.07 3.9
1.305 0.27 SD 0.91 0.95 0.77 0.81
3 Connecting people Mean 3.14 3.44 3.81 3.12
5.816 0.001* SD 1.19 1.21 1.17 1.05
Strength in
accessing
Mean 3.67 3.84 3.99 3.65
3.625 0.013* SD 0.76 0.82 0.69 0.78
*Significant at 5% level
5.8.7 Age Vs Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of
‘Expected Facilitation’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Requiring special
equipment’ and ‘Requiring training’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55
years’ and ‘>56’ which are Independent variables.
The table 5.8.7 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the age. The average score of ‘Requiring special equipment’ given by the respondents
whose age is ’25 to 35 years’ is 2.43, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.3, ’46 to 55 years’ is 1.76
and ‘>56 years’ is 2.17. The F value is 5.641 and significant value is 0.001 since it is
<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Requiring special
equipment’ does impact across the different age groups.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Requiring training’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on their age. The average score given by the
respondents whose age group is from’25 to 35 years’ is 2.54, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.2,
’46 to 55 years’ is 1.8 and ‘>56’ is 2.06. The F value is 7.273 and significant value is
189
0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that respondents
of different age group do seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Requiring
training’.
The mean value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ given by the respondents of age
group ’25 to 35 years’ is 2.49, ’36 to 45 years’ is 2.25, ’46 to 55 years’ is 1.78 and
‘>56 years’ is 2.11. The F value is 7.592 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05
the mean difference existing between respondents of different age group is statistically
significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted
outcome based on ‘Expected Facilitation’.
Table 5.8.7 Age Vs Expected Facilitation in accessing INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Age in Years F
value
P
value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72
1
Requiring
special
equipment
Mean 2.43 2.3 1.76 2.17 5.641 0.001*
SD 1.25 1.17 1.14 0.97
2 Requiring
training
Mean 2.54 2.2 1.8 2.06 7.273 0.000*
SD 1.18 0.95 1.03 0.99
Expected
Facilitation
Mean 2.49 2.25 1.78 2.11 7.592 0.000*
SD 1.08 0.94 1.03 0.94
*Significant at 5% level
5.8.8 Age Vs Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of ‘F8
Core purpose’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Teaching’ and ‘Research’ are
computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based on their age
’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55 years’ and ‘>56’ which are Independent
variables.
The table 5.8.8 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the age. The average score of ‘Teaching’ given by the respondents whose age is ’25 to
35 years’ is 3.94, ’36 to 45 years’ is 3.8, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.99 and ‘>56 years’ is
190
3.88. The F value is 0.785 and significant value is 0.503 since it is >.05 the mean
difference is not significant which implies that ‘Teaching’ does not impact across the
different age groups.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Research’ in the perception of the respondents’
categorized based on their age. The average score given by the respondents whose age
group is from’25 to 35 years’ is 4.75, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.85, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.82
and ‘>56’ is 4.57. The F value is 5.035 and significant value is 0.002 since it is <.05
the mean difference is significant which implies that respondents of different age
group perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Research’.
The mean value for ‘Core purpose’ given by the respondents of age group ’25
to 35 years’ is 4.34, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.37, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.41 and ‘>56 years’ is
4.24. The F value is 1.086 and significant value is 0.355 since it is >.05 the mean
difference existing between respondents of different age group is statistically not
significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the
targeted outcome based on ‘Core purpose’.
Table 5.8.8 Age Vs Core Purpose of using INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Age in Years F
value
P
value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72
1 Teaching Mean 3.94 3.8 3.99 3.88
0.785 0.503 SD 1.07 1.07 0.77 0.88
2 Research Mean 4.75 4.85 4.82 4.57
5.035 0.002* SD 0.6 0.38 0.39 0.76
Core
purpose
Mean 4.34 4.37 4.41 4.24 1.086 0.355
SD 0.78 0.66 0.4 0.67
*Significant at 5% level
5.8.9 Age Vs Value Addition
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of ‘Value
addition’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Downloading possibilities’ and
‘Full text retrieval’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents
191
classified based on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55 years’ and
‘>56’ which are Independent variables.
The table 5.8.9 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the age. The average score of ‘Downloading possibilities’ given by the respondents
whose age is ’25 to 35 years’ is 4.44, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.39, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.28
and ‘>56 years’ is 4.54. The F value is 2.044 and significant value is 0.107 since it is
>.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Downloading
possibilities’ does not impact across the different age groups.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Full text retrieval’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on their age. The average score given by the
respondents whose age group is from’25 to 35 years’ is 4.35, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.47,
’46 to 55 years’ is 4.34 and ‘>56’ is 4.58. The F value is 1.743 and significant value
is 0.158 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that
respondents of different age group perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Full text
retrieval’.
The mean value for ‘Value addition’ given by the respondents of age group
’25 to 35 years’ is 4.38, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.43, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.32 and ‘>56
years’ is 4.56. The F value is 1.899 and significant value is 0.129 since it is >.05 the
mean difference existing between respondents of different age group is statistically
not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the
targeted outcome based on ‘Value addition’.
Table 5.8.9 Age Vs Value Addition
S/N
Age in Years F
value
P
value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72
1 Downloading
possibilities
Mean 4.44 4.39 4.28 4.54 2.044 0.107
SD 0.65 0.66 0.7 0.7
2 Full text
retrieval
Mean 4.35 4.47 4.34 4.58 1.743 0.158
SD 0.74 0.72 0.86 0.69
Value
addition
Mean 4.38 4.43 4.32 4.56 1.899 0.129
SD 0.66 0.63 0.71 0.67
*Significant at 5% level
192
5.8.10 Age Vs Satisfaction
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the seven attributes of
‘Satisfaction’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Required INDEST E-
Resources subscribed by the library’, ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-
Resources in your library’, ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’,
‘Back volumes of INDEST E-Resources available in library’, ‘How far INDEST E-
Resources available in library enable you to meet your needs’, ‘Satisfaction obtained
from using INDEST E-Resources’ and ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-
Resources’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based
on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55 years’ and ‘>56’ which are
Independent variables.
The table 5.8.10 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the age. The average score of ‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the
library’ given by the respondents whose age is ’25 to 35 years’ is 3.77, ’36 to 45
years’ is 4.31, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.68 and ‘>56 years’ is 4.04. The F value is 10.28
and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that ‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the library’ does impact
across the different age groups.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-
Resources in your library’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on
their age. The average score given by the respondents whose age group is from’25 to
35 years’ is 3.59, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.05, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.63 and ‘>56’ is 4.06.
The F value is 6.695 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference
is significant which implies that respondents of different age group seem to perceive
in different ways with regard to ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-Resources
in your library’.
The mean value for ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’
given by the respondents of age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 3.47, ’36 to 45 years’ is 3.94,
’46 to 55 years’ is 3.57 and ‘>56 years’ is 4.03. The F value is 6.819 and significant
193
value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between respondents of
different age group is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant
effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Number of INDEST E-
Resources available in library’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Back volumes of
INDEST E-Resources available in library’ as given by the respondents of the age
group ’25 to 35 years’ is 3.39, ’36 to 45 years’ is 3.58, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.55 and
‘>56 years’ 3.83. The F value is 2.157 and significant value is 0.093 since it is >.05
the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Back volumes of INDEST
E-Resources available in library’ does not impact across the different age groups.
The average score of ‘How far INDEST E-Resources available in library
enable you to meet your needs’ given by the respondents of age group’25 to 35 years’
is 3.39, ’36 to 45 years’ is 3.98, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.55 and ‘>56 years’ is 4.06. The F
value is 8.515 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that ‘How far INDEST E-Resources available in library
enable you to meet your needs’ does impact across the different age groups.
The average score of ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-Resources’
given by the respondents of age group’25 to 35 years’ is 3.7, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.11,
’46 to 55 years’ is 3.76 and ‘>56 years’ is 4.15. The F value is 7.972 and significant
value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that
‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-Resources’ does impact across the
different age groups.
The average score of ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-
Resources’ given by the respondents of age group’25 to 35 years’ is 3.87, ’36 to 45
years’ is 4.37, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.05 and ‘>56 years’ is 4.08. The F value is 6.27 and
significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-Resources’ does impact
across the different age groups.
The average score of ‘Satisfaction’ given by the respondents of age group’25
to 35 years’ is 3.6, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.06, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.69 and ‘>56 years’ is
4.04. The F value is 7.579 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean
difference is significant which implies that ‘Satisfaction’ does impact across the
different age groups.
194
Table 5.8.10 Age Vs Satisfaction
S/N
Age in Years F
value
P
value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72
1
Required INDEST E-
Resources subscribed
by the library
Mean 3.77 4.31 3.68 4.04 10.28 0.000*
SD 1.02 0.71 1.21 0.96
2
Subject coverage of
available INDEST E-
Resources in your
library
Mean 3.59 4.05 3.63 4.06
6.695 0.000* SD 0.88 0.93 1.09 0.97
3
Number of INDEST
E-Resources available
in library
Mean 3.47 3.94 3.57 4.03 6.819 0.000*
SD 0.99 0.9 1.06 0.96
4
Back volumes of
INDEST E-Resources
available in library
Mean 3.39 3.58 3.55 3.83 2.157 0.093
SD 1.01 1.07 0.99 1.18
5
How far INDEST E-
Resources available in
library enable you to
meet your needs
Mean 3.39 3.98 3.55 4.06
8.515 0.000* SD 1.17 0.96 1.1 0.99
6
Satisfaction obtained
from using INDEST
E-Resources
Mean 3.7 4.11 3.76 4.15 7.972 0.000*
SD 0.73 0.62 0.94 0.91
7
Infrastructure
available to Access
INDEST E-Resources
Mean 3.87 4.37 4.05 4.08 6.27 0.000*
SD 0.98 0.74 1.07 0.81
Satisfaction
Mean 3.6 4.06 3.69 4.04 7.579 0.000*
SD 0.87 0.68 0.96 0.88
*Significant at 5% level
5.8.11 Age Vs Importance of INDEST E-Resources
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of
‘Importance’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Importance of the INDEST E-
Resources for your research’ and ‘Do you think that the information content of
INDEST E-Resources is useful’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55
years’ and ‘>56’ which are Independent variables.
195
The table 5.8.11 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the age. The average score of ‘Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for your
research’ given by the respondents whose age is ’25 to 35 years’ is 4.55, ’36 to 45
years’ is 4.64, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.66 and ‘>56 years’ is 4.34. The F value is 3.123
and significant value is 0.026 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that ‘Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for your research’ does impact
across the different age groups.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Do you think that the information content of
INDEST E-Resources is useful’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized
based on their age. The average score given by the respondents whose age group is
from’25 to 35 years’ is 4.54, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.67, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.61 and ‘>56
years’ is 4.37. The F value is 2.742 and significant value is 0.043 since it is <.05 the
mean difference is significant which implies that respondents of different age group
seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Do you think that the information
content of INDEST E-Resources is useful’.
The mean value for ‘Importance’ given by the respondents of age group ’25 to
35 years’ is 4.55, ’36 to 45 years’ is 4.66, ’46 to 55 years’ is 4.63 and ‘>56 years’ is
4.36. The F value is 3.159 and significant value is 0.025 since it is <.05 the mean
difference existing between respondents of different age group is statistically
significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted
outcome based on ‘Importance’.
Table 5.8.11 Age Vs Importance of INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Age in Years F
value
P
value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72
1
Importance of the INDEST
E-Resources for your
research
Mean 4.55 4.64 4.66 4.34 3.123 0.026
SD 0.67 0.55 0.64 1.15
2
Do you think that the
information content of
INDEST E-Resources is
useful
Mean 4.54 4.67 4.61 4.37
2.742 0.043* SD 0.72 0.51 0.65 1.15
Importance
Mean 4.55 4.66 4.63 4.36 3.159 0.025
SD 0.66 0.46 0.63 1.14
*Significant at 5% level
196
5.8.12 Age Vs Reading Pattern of INDEST E-Resources by IIT Faculty
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the one attribute of
Reading pattern’ are the dependent variables such as ‘Read electronic(on monitor)’
and ‘Read print out’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents
classified based on their age ’25 to 35 years’, ’36 to 45 years’, ’46 to 55 years’ and
‘>56 years’ which are Independent variables.
The table 5.8.12 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
the age. The mean value for ‘Read electronic(on monitor)’ given by the respondents of
age group ’25 to 35 yrs’ is 4.16, ’36 to 45 yrs’ is 4.28, ’46 to 55 yrs’ is 4.09 and ‘>56
yrs’ is 4.21. The F value is 0.953 and significant value is 0.415 since it is >.05 the
mean difference existing between respondents of different age group is statistically
not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the
targeted outcome based on ‘Read electronic (on monitor)’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Read print out’ as
given by the respondents of the age group ’25 to 35 years’ is 3.49, ’36 to 45 years’ is
2.91, ’46 to 55 years’ is 3.65 and ‘>56 years’ 3.18. The F value is 9.304 and
significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that ‘Read print out’ does impact across the different age group.
Table 5.8.12 Age Vs Reading Pattern of INDEST E-Resources by IIT Faculty
S/N
Age in Years F
value
P
value 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
N=81 N=165 N=93 N=72
1 Read electronic(on
monitor)
Mean 4.16 4.28 4.09 4.21 0.953 0.415
SD 0.89 0.81 0.96 0.99
2 Read print out Mean 3.49 2.91 3.65 3.18
9.304 0.000* SD 1.06 1.13 1.12 1.19
*Significant at 5% level
197
Fig. 35: Age wise Factors analysis
5.8.13 Summary
This section deals with the testing of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Basic
Advantages, Disadvantages, Augmented Purpose, Availability and Accessibility,
Limitation of Accessing, Strength in Accessing, Expected Facilitation, Core Purpose,
Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance and Read Pattern of IIT Faculty by age wise
using INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs. The summary of section 5.8
indicate that F value is 1.855 and significant value is 0.137 since it is >.05 the mean
difference is not significant which implies that ‘Basic Advantages’ does not impact
across the different age group (Table 5.8.1), The F value is 1.178 and significant value
is 0.318 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that
‘Disadvantages’ does not impact across the different age groups (Table 5.8.2), The F
value is 12.03 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that ‘Augmented Purpose’ does impact across the different
age groups (Table 5.8.3), The F value is 3.102 and significant value is 0.027 since it is
<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Availability and
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
F1 Basic
Advantages
F2
Disadvantages
F3 Augmented
Purpose
F4 Availability
and
accessibility
F5 Limitation
of accessing
system
F6 Strength in
accessing
network
F7 Expected
Facilitation
F8 Core
purpose
F9 Value
addition
Mea
n S
core
25 to 35 yrs 36 - 45 46 - 55 >56
198
accessibility’ does impact across the different age groups (Table 5.8.4), The F value is
3.918 and significant value is 0.009 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant
which implies that ‘Limitation of accessing system’ does impact across the different
age groups(Table 5.8.5), The F value is 3.625 and significant value is 0.013 since it is
<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Strength in accessing
network’ does impact across the different age groups(Table 5.8.6), The F value is
7.592 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing
between respondents of different age group is statistically significant at 5% level. This
shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on Expected
Facilitation(Table 5.8.7), The F value is 1.086 and significant value is 0.355 since it is
>.05 the mean difference existing between respondents of different age group is
statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not
evident on the targeted outcome based on Core purpose(Table 5.8.8), The F value is
1.899 and significant value is 0.129 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing
between respondents of different age group is statistically not significant at 5% level.
This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on
Value addition (Table 5.8.9), The F value is 7.579 and significant value is 0.000 since
it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Satisfaction’ does
impact across the different age groups (Table 5.8.10), The F value is 3.159 and
significant value is 0.025 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between
respondents of different age group is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows
that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on Importance
(Table 5.8.11), The F value is 9.304 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the
mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Read print out’ does impact across
the different age group(Table 5.8.12).
199
SECTION 9
COMPUTER LITERACY IN USING OF INDEST E-RESOURCES BY THE
FACULTY OF IITS
5.9.0 Introduction
This section deals with the testing of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Basic
Advantages, Disadvantages, Augmented Purpose, Availability and Accessibility,
Limitation of Accessing, Strength in Accessing, Expected Facilitation, Core Purpose,
Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance, Reading Pattern of INDEST E-Resources
by IIT Faculty, Computer Literacy in using INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top
seven IITs.
Hypothesis IV
Ho: There is no significant difference on Perception on INDEST usage Vs Computer
literacy.
Ha: There is significant difference on Perception on INDEST usage Vs Computer
literacy.
5.9.1 Computer Literacy Vs Basic Advantage
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the five attributes of ‘Basic
Advantages’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘User-friendly interface’,
‘Retrieval possibilities’, ‘Searchability/search capabilities’, ‘Currency (Up-to-date
information)’ and ‘Convenience’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on their computer literacy(‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’)
which are Independent variables.
The table 5.9.1 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘User-friendly interface’ given by the
respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.25, ‘Good’ is 4.28 and ‘Average’
is 4.08. The F value is 0.818 and significant value is 0.442 since it is >.05 the mean
200
difference is not significant which implies that ‘User-friendly interface’ does not
impact across different level of computer literacy.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Retrieval possibilities’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on their Computer literacy. The average score given
by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.18, ‘Good’ is 4.27 and
‘Average’ is 4.04. The F value is 1.172 and significant value is 0.311 since it is >.05
the mean difference is not significant which implies that respondents with different
computer literacy perceive in similar ways with regard to ‘Retrieval possibilities’.
The mean value for ‘Searchability/search capabilities’ given by the
respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.4, ‘Good’ is 4.29 and ‘Average’
is 4.08. The F value is 2.037 and significant value is 0.132 since it is >.05 the mean
difference existing between respondents with different computer literacy is
statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not
evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Searchability/search capabilities’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Currency (Up-to-date
information)’ as given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is
4.19,‘Good’ is 4.32 and ‘Average’ is 4.2. The F value is 1.145 and significant value is
0.319 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that
‘Currency (Up-to-date information)’ does not impact across different level of
computer literacy.
The mean value for ‘Convenience’ given by the respondents whose computer
literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.32, ‘Good’ is 4.33 and ‘Average’ is 4.11. The F value is 0.928
and significant value is 0.396 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing between
respondents with different computer literacy is statistically not significant at 5% level.
This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on
‘Convenience’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Basic Advantages’ as
given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.27,‘Good’ is 4.3 and
‘Average’ is 4.08. The F value is 1.448 and significant value is 0.236 since it is >.05
the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Basic Advantages’ does not
impact across different level of computer literacy.
201
Table 5.9.1 Computer Literacy Vs Basic Advantage
S/N
Computer Literacy F
value
P
value Expert Good Average
N=120 N=263 N=28
1 User-friendly interface Mean 4.25 4.28 4.08
0.82 0.442 SD 0.84 0.75 0.84
2 Retrieval possibilities Mean 4.18 4.27 4.04
1.17 0.311 SD 0.94 0.78 0.81
3 Searchability/search
capabilities
Mean 4.4 4.29 4.08 2.04 0.132
SD 0.9 0.74 0.8
4 Currency (Up-to-date
information)
Mean 4.19 4.32 4.2 1.15 0.319
SD 0.9 0.76 0.76
5 Convenience Mean 4.32 4.33 4.11
0.93 0.396 SD 0.8 0.76 1.15
Basic Advantages
Mean 4.27 4.3 4.08 1.45 0.236
SD 0.75 0.59 0.79
*Significant at 5% level
5.9.2 Computer Literacy Vs Disadvantage
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the five attributes of
‘Disadvantages’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Perishable citation’, ‘Format
that a large proportion of e-journal use’, ‘Lack of standardized formats’,
‘Authenticity’ and ‘Search engines ignores PDF files’ are computed to understand the
perception of respondents classified based on their computer literacy(‘Expert’,
‘Good’, ‘Average’) which are Independent variables.
The table 5.9.2 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Perishable citation’ given by the
respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 2.43, ‘Good’ is 2.31 and ‘Average’
is 2.2. The F value is 0.695 and significant value is 0.5 since it is >.05 the mean
difference is not significant which implies that ‘Perishable citation’ does not impact
across different level of computer literacy.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal use’ in
the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on their Computer literacy. The
202
average score given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 2.39,
‘Good’ is 2.38 and ‘Average’ is 2.2. The F value is 0.382 and significant value is
0.683 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that
respondents with different computer literacy perceive in similar ways with regard to
‘Format that a large proportion of e-journal use’.
The mean value for ‘Lack of standardized formats’ given by the respondents
whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 2.58, ‘Good’ is 2.58 and ‘Average’ is 2.15. The
F value is 1.592 and significant value is 0.205 since it is >.05 the mean difference
existing between respondents with different computer literacy is statistically not
significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the
targeted outcome based on ‘Lack of standardized formats’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Authenticity’ as given
by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 2.21, ‘Good’ is 2.22 and
‘Average’ is 2.08. The F value is 0.216 and significant value is 0.806 since it is >.05
the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Authenticity’ does not
impact across different level of computer literacy.
The mean value for ‘Search engines ignores PDF files’ given by the
respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 2.08, ‘Good’ is 2.01 and ‘Average’
is 2.19. The F value is 0.429 and significant value is 0.652 since it is >.05 the mean
difference existing between respondents with different computer literacy is
statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not
evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Search engine ignores PDF files’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Disadvantages’ as
given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 2.33,‘Good’ is 2.27
and ‘Average’ is 2.16. The F value is 0.419 and significant value is 0.658 since it is
>.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Disadvantages’ does
not impact across different level of computer literacy.
203
Table 5.9.2 Computer Literacy Vs Disadvantage
S/N
Computer Literacy F
value
P
value Expert Good Average
N=120 N=263 N=28
1 Perishable citation Mean 2.43 2.31 2.2
0.7 0.5 SD 1.15 0.98 1.32
2
Format that a large
proportion of e-journal
use
Mean 2.39 2.38 2.2 0.38 0.683
SD 1.18 0.92 1.22
3 Lack of standardized
formats
Mean 2.58 2.58 2.15 1.59 0.205
SD 1.22 1.19 1.29
4 Authenticity Mean 2.21 2.22 2.08
0.22 0.806 SD 1.11 1.1 1.26
5 Search engines ignores
PDF files
Mean 2.08 2.01 2.19 0.43 0.652
SD 1.1 1.02 1.26
Disadvantages
Mean 2.33 2.27 2.16 0.42 0.658
SD 1 0.85 1.2
*Significant at 5% level
5.9.3 Computer Literacy Vs Augmented Purpose
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the six attributes of
‘Augmented Purpose’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘To be up-to-date in the
subject’, ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’, ‘To get latest facts and statistics’,
‘To know the trends in Technical field’, ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be
competitive in the field’ and ‘To write Articles’ are computed to understand the
perception of respondents classified based on their computer literacy(‘Expert’,
‘Good’, ‘Average’) which are Independent variables.
The table 5.9.3 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’ given
by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.48, ‘Good’ is 4.45 and
‘Average’ is 3.85. The F value is 5.735 and significant value is 0.004 since it is <.05
the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘To be up-to-date in the subject’
does impact across different level of computer literacy.
204
To ascertain the impact of ‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’ in the
perception of the respondents’ categorized based on their Computer literacy. The
average score given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.23,
‘Good’ is 4.07 and ‘Average’ is 3.56. The F value is 5.058 and significant value is
0.007 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that respondents
with different computer literacy seem to perceive in different ways with regard to
‘Preparing for seminars, workshops etc’.
The mean value for ‘To get latest facts and statistics’ given by the respondents
whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.25, ‘Good’ is 4.07 and ‘Average’ is 3.85. The
F value is 2.046 and significant value is 0.131 since it is >.05 the mean difference
existing between respondents with different computer literacy is statistically not
significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the
targeted outcome based on ‘To get latest facts and statistics’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘To know the trends in
Technical field’ as given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is
4.18,‘Good’ is 4.25 and ‘Average’ is 3.88. The F value is 1.374 and significant value
is 0.254 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘To
know the trends in Technical field’ does not impact across different level of computer
literacy.
The mean value for ‘To get comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in
the field’ given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.29,
‘Good’ is 4.15 and ‘Average’ is 3.88. The F value is 1.872 and significant value is
0.155 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different
computer literacy is statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that a
significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘To get
comprehensive knowledge and be competitive in the field’.
The mean value for ‘To write Articles’ given by the respondents whose
computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.46, ‘Good’ is 4.41 and ‘Average’ is 3.89. The F
value is 6.65 and significant value is 0.001 since it is <.05 the mean difference
existing between respondents with different computer literacy is statistically
significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted
outcome based on ‘To write Articles’.
205
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Augmented Purpose’
as given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.32, ‘Good’ is
4.26 and ‘Average’ is 3.82. The F value is 5.137 and significant value is 0.006 since it
is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Augmented Purpose’
does impact across different level of computer literacy.
Table 5.9.3 Computer Literacy Vs Augmented Purpose
S/N
Computer Literacy F
value
P
value Expert Good Average
N=120 N=263 N=28
1 To be up-to-date in the
subject
Mean 4.48 4.45 3.85 5.74 0.004*
SD 0.68 1 1.01
2 Preparing for seminars,
workshops etc
Mean 4.23 4.07 3.56 5.06 0.007*
SD 0.88 0.99 1.04
3 To get latest facts and
statistics
Mean 4.25 4.07 3.85 2.05 0.131
SD 1.08 0.98 0.92
4 To know the trends in
Technical field
Mean 4.18 4.25 3.88 1.37 0.254
SD 0.93 1.13 1.24
5
To get comprehensive
knowledge and be
competitive in the field
Mean 4.29 4.15 3.88 1.87 0.155
SD 0.86 1.06 0.97
6 To write Articles Mean 4.46 4.41 3.89
6.65 0.001* SD 0.76 0.74 0.97
Augmented Purpose
Mean 4.32 4.26 3.82 5.14 0.006*
SD 0.59 0.78 0.88
*Significant at 5% level
5.9.4 Computer Literacy Vs Availability and Accessibility
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the four attributes of
‘Availability and Accessibility’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Prompt
accessibility (7/24 hours a day)’, ‘Desktop availability’, ‘Free access’ and ‘Multiuser
access’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based on
their computer literacy(‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’) which are Independent variables.
The table 5.9.4 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Prompt accessibility (7/24 hours a
206
day)’ given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.31, ‘Good’ is
4.23 and ‘Average’ is 4.28. The F value is 0.238 and significant value is 0.788 since it
is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Prompt accessibility
(7/24 hours a day)’ does not impact across different level of computer literacy.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Desktop availability’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on their Computer literacy. The average score given
by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.52, ‘Good’ is 4.17 and
‘Average’ is 4.52. The F value is 5.926 and significant value is 0.003 since it is <.05
the mean difference is significant which implies that respondents with different
computer literacy seem to perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Desktop
availability’.
The mean value for ‘Free access’ given by the respondents whose computer
literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.42, ‘Good’ is 3.86 and ‘Average’ is 4.48. The F value is
14.408 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing
between respondents with different computer literacy is statistically significant at 5%
level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based
on ‘Free access’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Multiuser access’ as
given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 3.67,‘Good’ is 3.51
and ‘Average’ is 2.6. The F value is 8.233 and significant value is 0.000 since it is
<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Multiuser access’ does
impact across different level of computer literacy.
The mean value for ‘Availability and accessibility’ given by the respondents
whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.24, ‘Good’ is 3.95 and ‘Average’ is 3.97. The
F value is 4.4598 and significant value is 0.012 since it is <.05 the mean difference
existing between respondents with different computer literacy is statistically
significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted
outcome based on ‘Availability and accessibility’.
207
Table 5.9.4 Computer Literacy Vs Availability and Accessibility
S/N
Computer Literacy F
value P value Expert Good Average
N=120 N=263 N=28
1 Prompt accessibility
(7/24 hours a day)
Mean 4.31 4.23 4.28 0.24 0.788
SD 0.88 1.13 0.61
2 Desktop availability Mean 4.52 4.17 4.52
5.93 0.003* SD 0.8 1.06 0.65
3 Free access Mean 4.42 3.86 4.48
14.4 0.000* SD 0.86 1.09 0.71
4 Multiuser access Mean 3.67 3.51 2.6
8.23 0.000* SD 1.1 1.23 1.5
Availability and
accessibility
Mean 4.24 3.95 3.97 4.46 0.012*
SD 0.74 0.91 0.68
*Significant at 5% level
5.9.5 Computer Literacy Vs Limitation of Accessing System
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the three attributes of
‘Limitation of accessing system’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Difficulty
reading computer screens’, ‘Limitations of computer monitor’ and ‘Often not included
in indexing and abstracting services’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on their computer literacy(‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’)
which are Independent variables.
The table 5.9.5 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Difficulty reading computer screens’
given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 2.7, ‘Good’ is 2.58
and ‘Average’ is 1.77. The F value is 5.397 and significant value is 0.005 since it is
<.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Difficulty reading
computer screens’ does impact across different level of computer literacy.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Limitations of computer monitor’ in the perception
of the respondents’ categorized based on their Computer literacy. The average score
208
given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 2.5, ‘Good’ is 2.38
and ‘Average’ is 1.81. The F value is 2.936 and significant value is 0.054.
The mean value for ‘Often not included in indexing and abstracting services’
given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 2.87, ‘Good’ is 2.37
and ‘Average’ is 1.81. The F value is 9.102 and significant value is 0.000 since it is
<.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different computer
literacy is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was
evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Often not included in indexing and
abstracting services’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Limitation of
accessing system’ as given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is
2.7,‘Good’ is 2.44 and ‘Average’ is 1.79. The F value is 6.713 and significant value is
0.001 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Limitation
of accessing system’ does impact across different level of computer literacy.
Table 5.9.5 Computer Literacy Vs Limitation of Accessing System
S/N
Computer Literacy F
value P value Expert Good Average
N=120 N=263 N=28
1 Difficulty reading
computer screens
Mean 2.7 2.58 1.77 5.397 0.005*
SD 1.45 1.31 0.95
2 Limitations of
computer monitor
Mean 2.5 2.38 1.81 2.936 0.054*
SD 1.32 1.37 1.02
3
Often not included in
indexing and
abstracting services
Mean 2.87 2.37 1.81 9.102 0.000*
SD 1.58 1.21 1.02
Limitation of
accessing system
Mean 2.7 2.44 1.79 6.713 0.001*
SD 1.35 1.1 0.93
*Significant at 5% level
5.9.6 Computer Literacy Vs Strength in Accessing Network
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the three attributes of
‘Strength in accessing network’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Accuracy’,
209
‘Credibility’ and ‘Connecting people’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on their computer literacy(‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’)
which are Independent variables.
The table 5.9.6 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Accuracy’ given by the respondents
whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.06, ‘Good’ is 4.02 and ‘Average’ is 3.78. The
F value is 1.333 and significant value is 0.265 since it is >.05 the mean difference is
not significant which implies that ‘Accuracy’ does not impact across different level of
computer literacy.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Credibility’ in the perception of the respondents’
categorized based on their Computer literacy. The average score given by the
respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 3.85, ‘Good’ is 4.1 and ‘Average’
is 3.67. The F value is 5.173 and significant value is 0.006 since it is <.05 the mean
difference is significant which implies that respondents with different computer
literacy seem to perceive different.
The mean value for ‘Connecting people’ given by the respondents whose
computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 3.62, ‘Good’ is 3.33 and ‘Average’ is 3.22. The F
value is 2.57 and significant value is 0.078 since it is >.05 the mean difference
existing between respondents with different computer literacy is statistically not
significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the
targeted outcome based on ‘Connecting people’.
The average score for the perception on ‘Strength in accessing network’ as
given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 3.84, ‘Good’ is 3.82
and ‘Average’ is 3.56. The F value is 1.605 and significant value is 0.202 since it is
>.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Strength in accessing
network’ does not impact across different level of computer literacy.
210
Table 5.9.6 Computer Literacy Vs Strength in Accessing Network
S/N
Computer Literacy F
value P value Expert Good Average
N=120 N=263 N=28
1 Accuracy Mean 4.06 4.02 3.78
1.333 0.265 SD 0.88 0.79 0.85
2 Credibility Mean 3.85 4.1 3.67
5.173 0.006* SD 1.03 0.78 0.96
3 Connecting people Mean 3.62 3.33 3.22
2.57 0.078 SD 1.31 1.13 1.22
4 Strength in accessing
network
Mean 3.84 3.82 3.56 1.605 0.202
SD 0.88 0.71 0.9
*Significant at 5% level
5.9.7 Computer Literacy Vs Expected Facilitation
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of
‘Expected Facilitation’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Requiring special
equipment’ and ‘Requiring training’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on their computer literacy (‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’)
which are Independent variables.
The table 5.9.7 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Requiring special equipment’ given by
the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 1.85, ‘Good’ is 2.31 and
‘Average’ is 2.28. The F value is 6.383 and significant value is 0.002 since it is <.05
the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Requiring special equipment’
does impact across different level of computer literacy.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Requiring training’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on their Computer literacy. The average score given
by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 1.85, ‘Good’ is 2.29 and
‘Average’ is 2. The F value is 6.962 and significant value is 0.001 since it is <.05 the
211
mean difference is significant which implies that respondents with different computer
literacy perceive different with regard to ‘Requiring training’.
The mean value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ given by the respondents whose
computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 1.85, ‘Good’ is 2.3 and ‘Average’ is 2.14. The F value
is 7.823 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing
between respondents with different computer literacy is statistically significant at 5%
level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based
on ‘Expected Facilitation’.
Table 5.9.7 Computer Literacy Vs Expected Facilitation
S/N
Computer Literacy F
value P value Expert Good Average
N=120 N=263 N=28
1 Requiring special
equipment
Mean 1.85 2.31 2.28 6.383 0.002*
SD 1.16 1.14 1.21
2 Requiring training Mean 1.85 2.29 2
6.962 0.001* SD 1.08 1.01 1.12
3 Expected Facilitation Mean 1.85 2.3 2.14
7.823 0.000* SD 1.06 0.95 1.13
*Significant at 5% level
5.9.8 Computer Literacy Vs Core Purpose
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of ‘Core
purpose’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Teaching’ and ‘Research’ are
computed to understand the perception of respondents classified based on their
computer literacy(‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’) which are Independent variables.
The table 5.9.8 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
their Computer literacy. The average score for ‘Teaching’ given by the respondents
whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.14, ‘Good’ is 3.81and ‘Average’ is 3.54. The
F value is 6.456 and significant value is 0.002 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that ‘Teaching’ does impact by the level of their computer
literacy.
212
To ascertain the impact of ‘Research’ in the perception of the respondents’
categorized based on their Computer literacy. The average score given by the
respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.93, ‘Good’ is 4.74 and ‘Average’
is 4.42. The F value is 12.755 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean
difference is significant which implies that respondents with different computer
literacy seem to perceive differently with regard to ‘Research’.
The mean value for ‘Core purpose’ given by the respondents whose computer
literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.55, ‘Good’ is 4.3 and ‘Average’ is 3.98. The F value is 11.392
and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between
respondents with different computer literacy is statistically significant at 5% level.
This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on
‘Core purpose’.
Table 5.9.8 Computer Literacy Vs Core Purpose
S/N
Computer Literacy F
value P value Expert Good Average
N=120 N=263 N=28
1 Teaching Mean 4.14 3.81 3.54
6.456 0.002* SD 0.84 0.96 1.3
2 Research Mean 4.93 4.74 4.42
12.755 0.000* SD 0.25 0.53 0.9
3 Core purpose Mean 4.55 4.3 3.98
11.392 0.000* SD 0.45 0.63 0.99
*Significant at 5% level
5.9.9 Computer Literacy Vs Value Addition
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of ‘Value
Addition’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Downloading Possibilities’ and
‘Full text retrieval’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents
classified based on their computer literacy(‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’) which are
Independent variables.
213
The table 5.9.9 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Downloading possibilities’ given by
the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.35, ‘Good’ is 4.44 and
‘Average’ is 4.3. The F value is 1.004 and significant value is 0.367 since it is >.05 the
mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Downloading Possibilities’ does
not impact by the level of their computer literacy.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Full text retrieval’ in the perception of the
respondents’ categorized based on their Computer literacy. The average score given
by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.56, ‘Good’ is 4.41 and
‘Average’ is 4.26. The F value is 2.488 and significant value is 0.084 since it is >.05
the mean difference is not significant which implies that respondents with different
computer literacy perceive in the same way with regard to ‘Retrieval possibilities’.
The mean value for ‘Value Addition’ given by the respondents whose
computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.45, ‘Good’ is 4.42 and ‘Average’ is 4.28. The F
value is 0.784 and significant value is 0.457 since it is >.05 the mean difference
existing between respondents with different level of computer literacy is statistically
not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not evident on the
targeted outcome based on ‘Value Addition’.
Table 5.9.9 Computer Literacy Vs Value Addition
S/N
Computer Literacy F
value P value Expert Good Average
N=120 N=263 N=28
1 Downloading
possibilities
Mean 4.35 4.44 4.3 1.004 0.367
SD 0.78 0.6 0.87
2 Full text retrieval Mean 4.56 4.41 4.26
2.488 0.084 SD 0.66 0.77 0.9
3 Value addition Mean 4.45 4.42 4.28
0.784 0.457 SD 0.68 0.63 0.88
*Significant at 5% level
5.9.10 Computer Literacy Vs Satisfaction
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
214
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the seven attributes of
‘Satisfaction’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Required INDEST E-
Resources subscribed by the library, ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-
Resources in your library’, ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’,
‘Back volumes of INDEST E-Resources available in library’, ‘How far INDEST E-
Resources available in library enable you to meet your needs’, ‘Satisfaction obtained
from using INDEST E-Resources’ and ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST
E-Resources’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents classified
based on their computer literacy(‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’) which are Independent
variables.
The table 5.9.10 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Required INDEST E-Resources
subscribed by the library’ given by the respondents whose computer literacy is
‘Expert’ is 4.08, ‘Good’ is 4.02 and ‘Average’ is 3.65. The F value is 2.065 and
significant value is 0.128 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which
implies that ‘Required INDEST E-Resources subscribed by the library’ does not
impact across different level of computer literacy.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-
Resources in your library’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized based on
their Computer literacy. The average score given by the respondents whose computer
literacy is ‘Expert’ is 3.96, ‘Good’ is 3.83 and ‘Average’ is 3.73. The F value is 0.914
and significant value is 0.402 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant
which implies that respondents with different level of computer literacy perceive in
similar ways with regard to ‘Subject coverage of available INDEST E-Resources in
your library’.
The mean value for ‘Number of INDEST E-Resources available in library’
given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 3.82, ‘Good’ is 3.77
and ‘Average’ is 3.68. The F value is 0.23 and significant value is 0.795 since it is
>.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different level of
computer literacy is statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that a
significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Number of
INDEST E-Resources available in library’.
215
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Back volumes of
INDEST E-Resources available in library’ as given by the respondents whose
computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 3.66,‘Good’ is 3.58 and ‘Average’ is 3.28. The F value
is 1.327 and significant value is 0.266 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not
significant which implies that ‘Back volumes of INDEST E-Resources available in
library’ does not impact across different level of computer literacy.
The mean value for ‘How far INDEST E-Resources available in library enable
you to meet your needs’ given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’
is 3.91, ‘Good’ is 3.74 and ‘Average’ is 3.64. The F value is 1.258 and significant
value is 0.285 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with
different level of computer literacy is statistically not significant at 5% level. This
shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘How
far INDEST E-Resources available in library enable you to meet your needs’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Satisfaction obtained
from using INDEST E-Resources’ as given by the respondents whose computer
literacy is ‘Expert’ is 3.94,‘Good’ is 3.97 and ‘Average’ is 3.88. The F value is 0.176
and significant value is 0.839 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant
which implies that ‘Satisfaction obtained from using INDEST E-Resources’ does not
impact across the different level of computer literacy.
The mean value for ‘Infrastructure available to Access INDEST E-Resources’
given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.23, ‘Good’ is 4.12
and ‘Average’ is 4.08. The F value is 0.644 and significant value is 0.526 since it is
>.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different level of
computer literacy is statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that a
significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Infrastructure
available to Access INDEST E-Resources’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Satisfaction’ as given
by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 3.95, ‘Good’ is 3.87 and
‘Average’ is 3.71. The F value is 0.982 and significant value is 0.376 since it is >.05
the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Satisfaction’ does not impact
across the different level of computer literacy.
216
Table 5.9.10 Computer Literacy Vs Satisfaction
S/N
Computer Literacy F
value P value Expert Good Average
N=120 N=263 N=28
1 Required INDEST E-Resources
subscribed by the library
Mean 4.08 4.02 3.65 2.065 0.128
SD 0.98 1 0.74
2
Subject coverage of available
INDEST E-Resources in your
library
Mean 3.96 3.83 3.73 0.914 0.402
SD 0.98 1.02 0.67
3 Number of INDEST E-Resources
available in library
Mean 3.82 3.77 3.68 0.23 0.795
SD 0.97 1.03 0.63
4 Back volumes of INDEST E-
Resources available in library
Mean 3.66 3.58 3.28 1.327 0.266
SD 1 1.11 0.89
5
How far INDEST E-Resources
available in library enable you to
meet your needs
Mean 3.91 3.74 3.64 1.258 0.285
SD 0.97 1.13 0.81
6 Satisfaction obtained from using
INDEST E-Resources
Mean 3.94 3.97 3.88 0.176 0.839
SD 0.92 0.77 0.53
7 Infrastructure available to Access
INDEST E-Resources
Mean 4.23 4.12 4.08 0.644 0.526
SD 1.01 0.89 0.49
8 Satisfaction Mean 3.95 3.87 3.71
0.982 0.376 SD 0.89 0.86 0.47
*Significant at 5% level
5.9.11 Computer Literacy by Importance
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the two attributes of
‘Importance’ that are the dependent variables such as ‘Importance of the INDEST E-
Resources for your research’ and ‘Do you think that the information content of
INDEST E-Resources is useful’ are computed to understand the perception of
respondents classified based on their computer literacy(‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’)
which are Independent variables.
The table 5.9.11 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
their Computer literacy. The average score of ‘Importance of the INDEST E-
Resources for your research’ given by the respondents whose computer literacy is
‘Expert’ is 4.65, ‘Good’ is 4.57 and ‘Average’ is 4.23. The F value is 3.59 and
217
significant value is 0.029 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which
implies that ‘Importance of the INDEST E-Resources for your research’ does impact
across different level of computer literacy.
To ascertain the impact of ‘Do you think that the information content of
INDEST E-Resources is useful’ in the perception of the respondents’ categorized
based on their Computer literacy. The average score given by the respondents whose
computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.78, ‘Good’ is 4.53 and ‘Average’ is 4.2. The F value
is 8.414 and significant value is 0.000 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that respondents with different level of computer literacy
perceive in different ways with regard to ‘Do you think that the information content of
INDEST E-Resources is useful’.
The mean value for ‘Importance’ given by the respondents whose computer
literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.72, ‘Good’ is 4.55 and ‘Average’ is 4.21. The F value is 6.142
and significant value is 0.002 since it is <.05 the mean difference existing between
respondents with different computer literacy is statistically significant at 5% level.
This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted outcome based on
‘Importance’.
Table 5.9.11 Computer Literacy Vs Importance
S/N
Computer Literacy F
value P value Expert Good Average
N=120 N=263 N=28
1 Importance of the INDEST E-
Resources for your research
Mean 4.65 4.57 4.23 3.59 0.029*
SD 0.66 0.78 0.59
2
Do you think that the information
content of INDEST E-Resources
is useful
Mean 4.78 4.53 4.2
8.414 0.000* SD 0.62 0.79 0.5
3 Importance Mean 4.72 4.55 4.21
6.142 0.002* SD 0.6 0.75 0.51
*Significant at 5%level
5.9.12 Computer Literacy Vs Reading Pattern of INDEST E-Resources by IIT
Faculty
To prove the above said hypothesis a mean based statistical test used for
testing the significance of the Hypothesis, when there are one dependent variable and
more than two levels or groups of Independent variable. In other words, to understand
statistical significance differences between or among two or more groups or level of
218
independent variables on dependent variables. In this case, the one attribute of
‘Reading Pattern’ that is dependent variables such as ‘Read electronic(on monitor)’
and ‘Read print out’ are computed to understand the perception of respondents
classified based on their computer literacy(‘Expert’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’) which are
Independent variables.
The table 5.9.12 shows the perception of the respondents categorized based on
their Computer literacy. The mean value for ‘Read electronic(on monitor)’ given by
the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 4.28, ‘Good’ is 4.18 and
‘Average’ is 4.1. The F value is 0.726 and significant value is 0.484 since it is >.05 the
mean difference existing between respondents with different computer literacy is
statistically not significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was not
evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Read electronic (on monitor)’.
The average score for the perception of respondents on ‘Read print out’ as
given by the respondents whose computer literacy is ‘Expert’ is 3.16,‘Good’ is 3.17
and ‘Average’ is 4. The F value is 6.407 and significant value is 0.002 since it is <.05
the mean difference is significant which implies that ‘Read print out’ does impact
across different level of computer literacy.
Table 5.9.12 Computer Literacy Vs Reading Pattern of INDEST E-Resources
S/N
Computer Literacy F
value
P
value Expert Good Average
N=120 N=263 N=28
1 Read electronic
(on monitor)
Mean 4.28 4.18 4.1 0.726 0.484
SD 0.86 0.93 0.7
2 Read print out Mean 3.16 3.17 4
6.407 0.002* SD 1.33 1.09 0.91
*Significant at 5% level
5.9.13 Summary
This section I deal with the testing of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Basic
Advantages, Disadvantages, Augmented Purpose, Availability and Accessibility,
Limitation of Accessing, Strength in Accessing, Expected Facilitation, Core Purpose,
Value Addition, Satisfaction, Importance and Read Pattern of IIT Faculty by
Computer Literacy in using INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs. The
summary of section 5.9 indicate that the F value is 1.448 and significant value is 0.236
since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Basic
219
Advantages’ does not impact across different level of computer literacy(Table 5.9.1),
The F value is 0.419 and significant value is 0.658 since it is >.05 the mean difference
is not significant which implies that ‘Disadvantages’ does not impact across different
level of computer literacy (Table 5.9.2), The F value is 5.137 and significant value is
0.006 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that
‘Augmented Purpose’ does impact across different level of computer literacy (Table
5.9.3), The F value is 4.4598 and significant value is 0.012 since it is <.05 the mean
difference existing between respondents with different computer literacy is
statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on
the targeted outcome based on ‘Availability and accessibility’ (Table 5.9.4), The F
value is 6.713 and significant value is 0.001 since it is <.05 the mean difference is
significant which implies that ‘Limitation of accessing system’ does impact across
different level of computer literacy (Table 5.9.5), The F value is 1.605 and significant
value is 0.202 since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that
‘Strength in accessing network’ does not impact across different level of computer
literacy (Table 5.9.6), The F value is 7.823 and significant value is 0.000 since it is
<.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with different computer
literacy is statistically significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was
evident on the targeted outcome based on ‘Expected Facilitation’ (Table 5.9.7), The F
value is 11.392 and significant value is 0.00 since it is <.05 the mean difference
existing between respondents with different computer literacy is statistically
significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted
outcome based on ‘Core purpose’ (Table 5.9.8), The F value is 0.784 and significant
value is 0.457 since it is >.05 the mean difference existing between respondents with
different level of computer literacy is statistically not significant at 5% level. This
shows that a significant effect was not evident on the targeted outcome based on
‘Value Addition’ (Table 5.9.9), The F value is 0.982 and significant value is 0.376
since it is >.05 the mean difference is not significant which implies that ‘Satisfaction’
does not impact across the different level of computer literacy (Table 5.9.10), The F
value is 6.142 and significant value is 0.002 since it is <.05 the mean difference
existing between respondents with different computer literacy is statistically
significant at 5% level. This shows that a significant effect was evident on the targeted
outcome based on ‘Importance’ (Table 5.9.11), The F value is 6.407 and significant
value is 0.002 since it is <.05 the mean difference is significant which implies that
‘Read print out’ does impact across different level of computer literacy (Table 5.9.12).
220
SECTION 10
FACTOR INFLUENCING USEOF INDEST E-RESOURCES BY IIT
FACULTY MEMBERS
5.10.0Introduction
This section deals with the (correlations between) factors influencing use of
INDEST E-Resources by IIT faculty members. Factors by Satisfaction; factors by
importance; factors by Read electronic (on monitor); factors by read print out
influencing in use of INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs.
Correlations
Hypothesis V
Ho: There is no relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs
Satisfaction.
Ha: There is relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs Satisfaction.
5.10.1 Factors by Satisfaction
Table 5.10.1 provides the details of the Pearson Correlation value and the Sig.
Value for the nine selected attributes and Satisfaction. The Pearson Correlation value
for ‘Basic Advantages’ and ‘Satisfaction’ is .266 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is
significant at 1% level of significance.
‘Disadvantages’ and ‘Satisfaction’ has a Pearson correlation value of -.061 and
the significant value is .12 as the significance value is >.05 the correlation is not
significant at 5% level of significance.
‘Augmented Purpose’ and ‘Satisfaction’ has a Pearson correlation value of
.371 and the Significance value is 0, hence the correlation is significant at 1% level of
significance.
The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Availability and accessibility’ and
‘Satisfaction’ is .484 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is significant at 1% level of
significance.
‘Limitation of accessing system’ and ‘Satisfaction’ has a Pearson correlation
value of -.051 and the significant value is .16 as the significance value is >.05 the
correlation is not significant at 5% level of significance.
221
‘Strength in accessing network’ and ‘Satisfaction’ has a Pearson correlation
value of .071 and the Significance value is 0.08, hence the correlation is not
significant at 5% level of significance.
The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ and ‘Satisfaction’ is
-.133 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is significant at 1% level of significance.
‘Core purpose’ and ‘Satisfaction’ has a Pearson correlation value of .397 and
the Significance value is 0.0, hence the correlation is significant at 1% level of
significance.
The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Value addition’ and ‘Satisfaction’ is .165
with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is significant at 1% level of significance.
Table 5.10.1 Factors by Satisfaction
S/N Factors
Satisfaction
N=411
1 Basic Advantages Pearson Correlation .266**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
2 Disadvantages Pearson Correlation -0.061
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.12
3 Augmented Purpose Pearson Correlation .371**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
4 Availability and accessibility Pearson Correlation .484**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
5 Limitation of accessing system Pearson Correlation -0.051
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.16
6 Strength in accessing network Pearson Correlation 0.071
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.08
7 Expected Facilitation Pearson Correlation -.133**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
8 Core purpose Pearson Correlation .397**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
9 Value addition Pearson Correlation .165**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
222
Fig. 36 Factors by Satisfaction
Factors by Importance
Hypothesis VI
Ho: There is no relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs
Importance.
Ha: There is relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs Importance.
5.10.2 Factors by Importance
Table 5.10.2 provides the details of the Pearson Correlation value and the Sig.
Value for the nine selected attributes and Importance. The Pearson Correlation value
for ‘Basic Advantages’ and ‘Importance’ is .411 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is
significant at 1% level of significance.
‘Disadvantages’ and ‘Importance’ has a Pearson correlation value of -.177 and
the significant value is .0 as the significance value is <.01 the correlation is significant
at 1% level of significance.
‘Augmented Purpose’ and ‘Importance’ has a Pearson correlation value of
.246 and the Significance value is 0, hence the correlation is significant at 1% level of
significance.
The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Availability and accessibility’ and
‘Importance’ is .253 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is significant at 1% level of
significance.
0.27
-0.06
0.37
0.48
-0.05
0.07
-0.13
0.40
0.17
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Pea
rson C
orr
elat
ion
223
‘Limitation of accessing system’ and ‘Importance’ has a Pearson correlation
value of -.101 and the significant value is .02 as the significance value is <.05 the
correlation is significant at 5% level of significance.
‘Strength in accessing network’ and ‘Importance’ has a Pearson correlation
value of .169 and the Significance value is 0, hence the correlation is significant at 1%
level of significance.
The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ and ‘Importance’ is -
.267 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is significant at 1% level of significance.
‘Core purpose’ and ‘Importance’ has a Pearson correlation value of .282 and
the Significance value is 0.0, hence the correlation is significant at 1% level of
significance.
The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Value addition’ and ‘Importance’ is .215
with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is significant at 1% level of significance.
Table 5.10.2 Factors by Importance
S/N Factors
Importance
N=411
1 Basic Advantages Pearson Correlation .411**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
2 Disadvantages Pearson Correlation -.177**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
3 Augmented Purpose Pearson Correlation .246**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
4 Availability and accessibility Pearson Correlation .253**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
5 Limitation of accessing
system
Pearson Correlation -.101*
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.02
6 Strength in accessing
network
Pearson Correlation .169**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
7 Expected Facilitation Pearson Correlation -.267**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
8 Core purpose Pearson Correlation .282**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
9 Value addition Pearson Correlation .215**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
224
Fig. 37 Factors by Importance
5.10.3 Factors by Read Electronic (on monitor)
Hypothesis VII
Ho: There is no relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs reading
Electronic version usage.
Ha: There is relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs reading
Electronic version usage.
5.10.3 Factors by Read Electronic (on monitor)
The table 5.10.3provides the details of the Pearson Correlation value and the
Sig. Value for the nine selected attributes and ‘Read Electronic (on monitor)’. The
Pearson Correlation value for ‘Basic Advantages’ and ‘Read Electronics (on monitor)’
is .133 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is significant at 1% level of significance.
‘Disadvantages’ and ‘Read Electronic (on monitor)’ has a Pearson correlation
value of .143 and the significant value is .0 as the significance value is <.01 the
correlation is not significant at 1% level of significance.
0.41
-0.18
0.25 0.25
-0.10
0.17
-0.27
0.28
0.22
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Pea
rson C
orr
elat
ion
225
‘Augmented Purpose’ and ‘Read Electronic (on monitor)’ has a Pearson
correlation value of .186 and the Significance value is 0, hence the correlation is
significant at 1% level of significance.
The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Availability and accessibility’ and ‘Read
Electronic (on monitor)’ is .263 with Sig. Value 0.000 hence it is significant at 1%
level of significance.
‘Limitation of accessing system’ and ‘Read Electronic (on monitor)’ has a
Pearson correlation value of -.096 and the significant value is .03 as the significance
value is <.05 the correlation is significant at 5% level of significance.
‘Strength in accessing network’ and ‘Read Electronic (on monitor)’ has a
Pearson correlation value of .05 and the Significance value is 0.15, hence the
correlation is not significant at 5% level of significance.
The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ and ‘Read
Electronic (on monitor)’ is -.112 with Sig. Value 0.02 hence it is significant at 5%
level of significance.
‘Core purpose’ and ‘Read Electronic (on monitor)’ has a Pearson correlation
value of .085 and the Significance value is 0.05.
The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Value addition’ and ‘Read Electronic (on
monitor)’ is .117 with Sig. Value 0.01 hence it is significant at 1% level of
significance.
226
Table 5.10.3 Factors by Read Electronics (on monitor)
S/N Factors
Read Electronics (on monitor)
N= 411
1 Basic Advantages Pearson Correlation .133**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
2 Disadvantages Pearson Correlation .143**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
3 Augmented Purpose Pearson Correlation .186**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
4 Availability and
accessibility
Pearson Correlation .263**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
5 Limitation of
accessing system
Pearson Correlation -.096*
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.03
6 Strength in
accessing network
Pearson Correlation 0.05
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.15
7 Expected
Facilitation
Pearson Correlation -.112*
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.02
8 Core purpose Pearson Correlation .085*
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.05
9 Value addition Pearson Correlation .117*
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.01
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
Fig. 38 Factors by Read Electronic (on monitor)
0.13 0.14
0.19
0.26
-0.10
0.05
-0.11
0.09
0.12
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Pea
rson C
orr
elat
ion
227
5.10.4 Factors by Read Print Out
Hypothesis VIII
Ho: There is no relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs reading
print version usage.
Ha: There is relation between factors influencing usage of INDEST Vs reading print
version usage.
5.10.4 Factors by Read Print Out
The table 5.10.4 provides the details of the Pearson Correlation value and the
Sig. Value for the nine selected attributes and ‘Read Print Out’. The Pearson
Correlation value for ‘Basic Advantages’ and ‘Read Print Out’ is -.018 with Sig.
Value 0.36 hence it is not significant at 5% level of significance.
‘Disadvantages’ and ‘Read Print Out’ has a Pearson correlation value of -.094
and the significant value is .04 as the significance value is <.05 the correlation is
significant at 5% level of significance.
‘Augmented Purpose’ and ‘Read Print Out’ has a Pearson correlation value of
-.158 and the Significance value is 0, hence the correlation is significant at 1% level of
significance.
The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Availability and accessibility’ and ‘Read
Print Out’ is -.03 with Sig. Value 0.28 hence it is not significant at 5% level of
significance.
‘Limitation of accessing system’ and ‘Read Print Out’ has a Pearson
correlation value of .175 and the significant value is .0 as the significance value is
<.01 the correlation is not significant at 1% level of significance.
‘Strength in accessing network’ and ‘Read Print Out’ has a Pearson correlation
value of -.007 and the Significance value is 0.44, hence the correlation is not
significant at 5% level of significance.
The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Expected Facilitation’ and ‘Read Print Out’
is -.069 with Sig. Value 0.09 hence it is not significant at 5% level of significance.
228
‘Core purpose’ and ‘Read Print Out’ has a Pearson correlation value of .023
and the Significance value is 0.32, hence the correlation is not significant at 5% level
of significance.
The Pearson Correlation value for ‘Value addition’ and ‘Read Print Out’ is .10
with Sig. Value 0.03 hence it is significant at 5% level of significance.
Table 5.10.4 Factors by Read Print Out
S/N Factors
Read Print Out
N= 411
1 Basic Advantages Pearson Correlation -0.018
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.36
2 Disadvantages Pearson Correlation -.094*
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.04
3 Augmented Purpose Pearson Correlation -.158**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
4 Availability and accessibility Pearson Correlation -0.030
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.28
5 Limitation of accessing system Pearson Correlation .175**
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.00
6 Strength in accessing network Pearson Correlation -0.007
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.44
7 Expected Facilitation Pearson Correlation -0.069
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.09
8 Core purpose Pearson Correlation 0.023
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.32
9 Value addition Pearson Correlation .100*
Sig. (1-tailed) 0.03
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
Fig. 39 Factors by Read Print Out
-0.02
-0.09
-0.16
-0.03
0.18
-0.01
-0.07
0.02
0.10
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Pea
rson C
orr
elat
ion
229
5.10.5 Summary
This section deals with the (correlations between) factors influencing use of
INDEST E-Resources by IIT faculty members. Factors by Satisfaction; factors by
importance; factors by Read electronic (on monitor); factors by read print out
influencing in use of INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs. The summary
of section 5.10 indicate that correlations between satisfaction and Basic advantages,
Augmented Purpose, Availability and accessibility, Strength in accessing network,
Core Purpose and Value addition are statistically significant at 1% level of
significance. Disadvantages, Limitation of Accessing and Expected Facilitation the
significance value is >.05 the correlation is not significant at 5% level of significance
(Table 5.10.1), Correlations between Importance of INDEST E-Resources and Basic
advantages, Augmented Purpose, Availability and accessibility, Strength in accessing
network, Core Purpose and Value addition are statistically significant at 1% level of
significance. Disadvantages, Limitation of Accessing and Expected Facilitation the
significance value is >.05 the correlation is not significant at 5% level of significance
(Table 5.10.2), correlations between Read Electronic (on monitor) of INDEST E-
Resources and Basic advantages, Disadvantages, Augmented Purpose, Availability
and accessibility, Strength in accessing network, Core Purpose and Value addition are
statistically significant at 1% level of significance. Limitation of Accessing and
Expected Facilitation correlation is not significant at 5% level of significance (Table
5.10.3), (Table 5.10.4).
230
SECTION 11
FACTOR AFFECTING INDEST E-RESOURCES USE ON LEVEL OF
SATISFACTION BY FACULTY OF TOP SEVEN IITS
5.11.0 Introduction
This section deals with the (Regression) factors affecting INDEST E-
Resources usage on level of satisfaction and Importance on faculty of top seven IITs.
Regression
Hypothesis – IX
Ho: There is no linear relationship existing between Factors affecting INDEST Vs
Level of Satisfaction.
Ha: There is linear relationship existing between Factors affecting INDEST Vs
Level of Satisfaction.
Table 5.11.1 Model Scores 1
Independent
Variable
Dependent
Variable R
R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
Basic Advantages,
Disadvantages,
Augmented Purpose,
Availability and
accessibility,
Limitation of
accessing system,
Strength in
accessing network,
Expected
Facilitation, Core
purpose,
Value addition
Satisfaction 0.621 0.386 0.371 0.673
The table 5.11.1 and 5.11.1.1 shows the impact of Factors affecting INDEST
usage on Satisfaction. The correlation coefficient value (R) is 0.621 for Model1,
which exhibits a very high amount of correlation between the independent
231
variable(Factors affects usage of INDEST) and dependent variable (Satisfaction),
with the F-value being 25.41 and its associated significance level being small
(P<0.01). The R square value gives us the goodness of fit of the regression model.
That is, the amount of variability explained by the whole of the selected predictor
variables in the model for 38.6% (R2%=.100 * x100) of variation in the dependent
variable (Satisfaction).
Table 5.11.1.1ANOVA
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 103.44 9 11.49
25.41 0.00 Residual 164.56 364 0.45
Total 268.01 373
Table 5.11.2 Coefficients
Coefficients
S/N Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 0.30 0.39 0.77 0.44
Basic Advantages 0.27 0.07 0.20 3.60 0.00
Disadvantages -0.02 0.05 -0.02 -0.43 0.67
Augmented Purpose 0.12 0.05 0.11 2.26 0.02
Availability and accessibility 0.37 0.05 0.38 7.93 0.00
Limitation of accessing system -0.06 0.04 -0.09 -1.72 0.09
Strength in accessing network 0.15 0.05 -0.14 2.75 0.01
Expected Facilitation -0.02 0.04 -0.03 -0.61 0.54
Core purpose 0.41 0.06 0.32 6.93 0.00
Value addition 0.13 0.07 -0.10 1.87 0.06
Table 5.11.2 shows among the Independent variables Basic Advantages,
Augmented Purpose, Availability and accessibility, Strength in accessing network and
Core purpose are statistically significant at 5% level; rest factors (Disadvantages,
232
Limitation of accessing system and Value addition)are not significant. Among the
significant variables, Availability and accessibility has highest T value it showed
high level of linear relation with respect to level of satisfaction.
Table 5.11.3 Model Scores 2
Hypothesis – X
Ho: There is no linear relationship existing between Factors affecting INDEST Vs
Level of Importance.
Ha: There is linear relationship existing between Factors affecting INDEST Vs
Level of Importance.
Independent Variable Dependent
Variable R
R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Basic Advantages,
Disadvantages, Augmented
Purpose, Availability and
accessibility, Limitation of
accessing, Strength in accessing
network, Expected Facilitation,
Core purpose, Value addition
Importance 0.535 0.286 0.269 0.611
The table 5.11.3 and 5.11.3.1 shows the impact of Factors affecting INDEST
usage on Importance. The correlation coefficient value (R) is 0. 535 for Model2,
which exhibits a very high amount of correlation between the independent
variable(Factors affects usage of INDEST) and dependent variable (Importance), with
the F-ratio being 16.22 and its associated significance level being small (P<0.01). The
R square value gives us the goodness of fit of the regression model. That is, the
amount of variability explained by the whole of the selected predictor variables in the
model for 28.6% (R2%=.100 * x100) of variation in the dependent variable
(Satisfaction).
233
Table 5.11.3.1ANOVA
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
2
Regression 54.55 9 6.06
16.22 0.00 Residual 135.98 364 0.37
Total 190.52 373
5.11.4 Coefficients
This section deals with the (Coefficients) factors affecting INDEST E-
Resources usage on level of importance on faculty of top seven IITs.
Table 5.11.4 Coefficients
Coefficients
S/N Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
2 (Constant) 2.38 0.36 6.68 0.00
Basic Advantages 0.44 0.07 0.40 6.58 0.00
Disadvantages -0.06 0.04 -0.08 -1.36 0.17
Augmented Purpose 0.07 0.05 0.08 1.41 0.16
Availability and
accessibility 0.12 0.04 0.14 2.79 0.01
Limitation of accessing
system -0.03 0.03 -0.05 -0.97 0.33
Strength in accessing
network 0.09 0.05 0.10 1.85 0.07
Expected Facilitation 0.09 0.04 -0.13 2.59 0.01
Core purpose 0.21 0.05 0.19 3.94 0.00
Value addition 0.14 0.06 -0.13 2.35 0.02
Table 5.11.4 shows among the Independent variables Basic Advantages,
Availability and accessibility, Expected Facilitation, Core purpose and Value addition
are statistically significant at 5% level, rest factors Disadvantages, Augmented
Purpose, Limitation of accessing and Strength in accessing network are not
234
significant. Among the significant variables, F1 Basic Advantages has highest t
value it showed high level of linear relation with respect to level of Importance.
5.11.5 Summary
The correlation coefficient value (R) is 0.621 for Model1, which exhibits a
very high amount of correlation between the independent variable(Factors affects
usage of INDEST) and dependent variable (Satisfaction), with the F-value being
25.41 and its associated significance level being small (P<0.01). The R square value
gives us the goodness of fit of the regression model. That is, the amount of variability
explained by the whole of the selected predictor variables in the model for 38.6%
(R2%=.100 * x100) of variation in the dependent variable (Satisfaction) (Table 5.11.1)
and (Table 5.11.1.1).
Independent variables Basic Advantages, Augmented Purpose, Availability
and accessibility, Strength in accessing network and Core purpose are statistically
significant at 5% level; rest factors (Disadvantages, Limitation of accessing system
and Value addition) are not significant. Among the significant variables,
Availability and accessibility has highest T value it showed high level of linear
relation with respect to level of satisfaction (Table 5.11.2).
The impact of Factors affecting INDEST usage on Importance, the correlation
coefficient value (R) is 0. 535 for Model2, which exhibits a very high amount of
correlation between the independent variable(Factors affects usage of INDEST) and
dependent variable (Importance), with the F-ratio being 16.22 and its associated
significance level being small (P<0.01). The R square value gives us the goodness of
fit of the regression model. That is, the amount of variability explained by the whole
of the selected predictor variables in the model for 28.6% (R2%=.100 * x100) of
variation in the dependent variable (Satisfaction) (Table 5.11.3) and (Table 5.11.3.1).
Independent variables Basic Advantages, Availability and accessibility,
Expected Facilitation, Core purpose and Value addition are statistically significant at
5% level, rest factors Disadvantages, Augmented Purpose, Limitation of accessing
and Strength in accessing network are not significant. Among the significant
variables, F1 Basic Advantages has highest T value it showed high level of linear
relation with respect to level of Importance (Table 5.11.4)
235
SECTION 12
AWARENESS OF INDEST E-RESOURCES AMONG FACULTY OF TOP
SEVEN IITS
5.12.0 Introduction
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) level of awareness of INDEST E-
Resources among faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics like Name of
IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy/ computer qualification.
Chi-Square
Hypothesis – XI
Ho: There is no significant difference between level of awareness and different
demographics (Name of IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy).
Ha: There is significant difference between level of awareness and different
demographics (Name of IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy).
5.12.1 Awareness of INDEST E-Resources by Name of the IIT
Table 5.12.1 showed the cross tabulation between IITs and Awareness of
INDEST, Awareness is created by Library professional across IIT is higher compared
to other source of awareness. IIT Kharagpur is 78% which is highest in this category
and lowest is IIT Delhi which is 42%, however; in the category Colleagues, IIT Delhi
is 36% and lowest is IIT Roorkee with 4%. For awareness created by ‘Internet’ and
IIT, IIT Roorkee has the highest value of 36% and IIT Madras has the lowest value of
9%. For awareness created by Friends, IIT Madras has the highest value of 8% and
IIT Roorkee has 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to
prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 62.002 and sig value is .000
(< .05), hence difference are statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates that Awareness of INDEST E-Resources by Name
of the IIT of the respondents and all IITs have significant association (Chi-Square=
62.002, df = 18 and Sig Value=0.00)
236
Table 5.12.1
Awareness of INDEST E-Resources by Name of the IIT
S/N Mode of Awareness Name of the IIT
Total IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
1 Friends 2 (4) 7 (7) 7 (8) 2 (3) 1 (3) 5 (7) 0 (0) 24 (6)
2 Library
professional staff 36 (78) 50 (49) 56 (64) 24 (69) 15 (42) 45 (64) 22 (65) 248 (60)
3 Internet 6 (12) 11 (11) 8 (9) 4 (11) 7 (19) 17 (24) 11 (32) 64 (16)
4 Colleagues 2 (4) 34 (33) 16 (18) 6 (17) 13 (36) 3 (4) 1 (3) 75 (18)
Total 46
(100)
102
(100)
87
(100)
36
(100)
36
(100)
70
(100)
34
(100)
411
(100)
Pearson Chi-Square=62.002; df=18; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT
Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
5.12.2 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Designation
The below table 5.12.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and
Awareness of INDEST, Awareness is created by Library professional across
Designation is higher compared to other source of awareness. Professor is 64% which
is highest in this category and lowest is Assistant Professor which is 55%, however; in
the category Colleagues, Professor is 22% and lowest is Assistant Professor with
15%. For awareness created by ‘Internet’, and Designation, Associate Professor has
the highest value of 21% and Professor has the lowest value of 10%. For awareness
created by Friends, Assistant Professor has the highest value of 12% and Associate
Professor has 1%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference in order to
prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 23.227 and sig value is .000
(< .05), hence difference are statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates that Awareness of INDEST E-Resources by
designation of the respondents and all IITs have significant association (Chi-Square=
23.227, df = 6 and Sig Value=0.00)
237
Table 5.12.2 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Designation
S/N
Mode of Awareness
Designation
Total Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
1 Friends 6 (3) 1 (1) 17 (12) 24 (6)
2 Library professional staff 112 (64) 58 (61) 79 (55) 248 (60)
3 Internet 18 (10) 20 (21) 26 (18) 64 (16)
4 Colleagues 38 (22) 15 (17) 21 (15) 75 (18)
Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=23.227; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.12.3 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Gender
Table 5.12.3 shows the cross tabulation between Gender and Awareness of
INDEST, Awareness is created by Library professional across Gender is higher
compared to other source of awareness. Female is 62% which is highest in this
category and lowest is Male which is 60%, however; in the category Colleagues,
Female is 19% and lowest is Male with 18%. For awareness created by ‘Internet’, and
Gender, Male has the highest value of 16% and Female has the lowest value of 11%.
Awareness created by Friends, Female has the highest value of 8% and Male has 5%.
The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi
square is employed, the chi square value is 1.567 and sig value is .67 (> .05), hence
difference is statistically not significant at 5% level of significance.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates that Awareness of INDEST E-Resources by gender
of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square= 1.567, df =
3 and Sig Value=0.67)
238
Table 5.12.3 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Gender
S/N Mode Of Awareness
Gender Total
Male Female
1 Friends 19 (5) 5 (8) 24 (6)
2 Library professional staff 209 (60) 39 (62) 248 (60)
3 Internet 57 (16) 7 (11) 64 (16)
4 Colleagues 63 (18) 12 (19) 75 (18)
Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=1.567; df=3; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.67
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.12.4 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Age in Years
Table 5.12.4 shows the cross tabulation between Age and Awareness of
INDEST, Awareness is created by Library professional across Age is higher compared
to other source of awareness. 46-55 age group is 75% which is highest in this category
and lowest is 25-35 age group which is 51%, however; in the category Colleagues, 36-
45 years is 20% and lowest is >56 age group with 15%. For awareness created by
‘Internet’, and age group, 36-45 has the highest value of 22% and 46-55 has the
lowest value of 5%. Awareness created by Friends, 25-35 has the highest value of
13% and 46-55 has 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order
to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 33.608 and sig value is
.00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates that Awareness of INDEST E-Resources by Age of
the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square= 33.608, df = 9
and Sig Value=0.00)
Table 5.12.4 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Age in Years
S/N Mode Of Awareness
Age In Years Total
25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
1 Friends 11 (13) 7 (4) 0 (0) 6 (8) 24 (6)
2 Library professional staff 42 (51) 89 (54) 70 (75) 47 (65) 248 (60)
3 Internet 15 (18) 36 (22) 5 (5) 8 (11) 64 (16)
4 Colleagues 13 (17) 33 (20) 18 (19) 11 (15) 75 (18)
Total 81 (100) 164 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=33.608; df=9; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
239
5.12.5 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Computer Literacy
Table 5.12.5 showed the cross tabulation between Computer Literacy and
Awareness of INDEST, Awareness is created by Library professional across
Computer Literacy is higher compared to other source of awareness. ‘Good’
Computer Literacy is 64% which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’
Computer Literacy which is 53%, however; in the category Colleagues, ‘Expert’
Computer Literacy is 25% and lowest is ‘Good’ Computer Literacy group with
14%. For awareness created by ‘Internet’, and Computer Literacy, ‘Good’ has the
highest value of 16% and ‘Average’ has the lowest value of 14%. Awareness created
by Friends, ‘Good’ has the highest value of 14% and ‘Average’ has 1%. The patterns
clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is
employed, the chi square value is 8.180 and sig value is .23 (> .05), hence difference
is statistically not significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates that Awareness of INDEST E-Resources by
computer literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-
Square= 8.180, df = 6 and Sig Value=0.23)
Table 5.12.5 Awareness INDEST E-Resources by Computer Literacy
S/N Mode Of Awareness Computer Literacy
Total Expert Good Average
1 Friends 9 (7) 14 (5) 1 (3) 24 (6)
2 Library professional staff 65 (53) 166 (64) 17 (59) 248 (60)
3 Internet 18 (15) 42 (16) 4 (14) 64 (16)
4 Colleagues 30 (25) 37 (14) 8 (24) 75 (18)
Total 122 (100) 259 (100) 30 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=8.180; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.23
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
240
5.12.6 Summary
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) level of awareness of INDEST E-
Resources among faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics like Name of
IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy/ computer qualification.
Summary of section5.12 indicates that Awareness is created by Library professional
across IIT is higher compared to other source of awareness. IIT-Kharagpur is 78%
which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT Delhi which is 42%the chi
square value is 62.002 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically
significant (Table 5.12.1), Awareness is created by Library professional across
Designation is higher compared to other source of awareness. Professor is 64% which
is highest in this category and lowest is Assistant Professor which is 55%the chi
square value is 23.227 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically
significant (Table 5.12.2), Awareness is created by Library professional across Gender
is higher compared to other source of awareness. Female is 62% which is highest in
this category and lowest is Male which is 60%the chi square value is 1.567 and sig
value is .67 (> .05), hence difference is statistically not significant at 5% level of
significance (Table 5.12.3), Awareness is created by Library professional across Age
is higher compared to other source of awareness. 46-55 age group is 75% which is
highest in this category and lowest is 25-35 age group which is 51%the chi
square value is 33.608 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically
significant(Table 5.12.4), Awareness is created by Library professional across
Computer Literacy is higher compared to other source of awareness. ‘Good’
Computer Literacy is 64% which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’
Computer Literacy which is 53%the chi square value is 8.180 and sig value is .23 (>
.05), hence difference is statistically not significant(Table 5.12.5).
241
SECTION 13
YEARS OF USING OF INDEST E-RESOURCES AMONG FACULTY OF TOP
SEVEN IITs
5.13.0 Introduction
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) years of using of INDEST E-
Resources among faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics like Name of
IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy.
Hypothesis – XII
Ho: There is no significant difference between years of using INDEST E-Resources
by Name of IITs, Designation, Gender, Age and Computer literacy)
Ha: There is significant difference between years of using INDEST E-Resources by
Name of IITs, Designation, Gender, Age and Computer literacy)
5.13.1 Years of Using by Name of the IIT
Table 5.13.1 shows the cross tabulation between IIT’s and Years of
Using, More than 4 years of using across IIT is higher compared to other years of
using. IIT-Kharagpur is 80% which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT
Bombay which is 47%, however; in the category 1-4 years, IIT Bombay is 45% and
lowest is IIT Kanpur with 3%. For Less than 1 year of using, and IIT, IIT Kharagpur
has the highest value of 27% and IIT Bombay and IIT Guwahati have the lowest value
of 9%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi
square is employed, the chi square value is 68.725 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence
difference are statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Years of Using INDEST E-Resources by IIT’s of
the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square= 68.725, df =
12 and Sig Value = 0.00)
242
Table 5.13.1 Years of Using by Name of the IIT
S/N
Years of
using
INDEST
Name of the IIT
Total IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
1 Less than 1 yr 12 (27) 8 (9) 13 (15) 6 (17) 9 (26) 6 (9) 5 (15) 59 (15)
2 1-4 years 3 (7) 42 (45) 8 (9) 1 (3) 3 (9) 16 (23) 3 (9) 77 (19)
3 More than 4
years 31 (67) 52 (47) 65 (76) 29 (80) 24 (65) 48 (68) 26 (76) 275 (66)
Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 86 (100) 36 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=68.725; df=12; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
243
5.13.2 Years of Using by Designation
Table 5.13.2 shows the cross tabulation between Designation and Years of
using, More than 4 years of using across Designation is higher compared to other
years of using. Professor is 79% which is highest in this category and lowest is
Assistant Professor which is 54%, however; in the category 1-4 years, Associate
Professor is 34% and lowest is Professor with 12%. For ‘Less than 1 year’, and
Designation, Assistant Professor has the highest value of 28% and Associate Professor
has the lowest value of 6%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in
order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 46.367 and sig
value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Years of Using INDEST E-Resources by
designation of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=
46.367, df = 4 and Sig Value = 0.00)
Table 5.13.2 Years of Using by Designation
S/N Years of using INDEST
Designation
Total Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
1 Less than 1 yr 15 (9) 6 (6) 39 (28) 60 (15)
2 1-4 years 20 (12) 32 (34) 25 (18) 77 (19)
3 More than 4 years 139 (79) 56 (60) 79 (54) 274 (66)
Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=46.367; df=4; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.13.3 Years of Using by Gender
Table 5.13.3 shows the cross tabulation between Gender and Years of
using, More than 4 years of using across Designation is higher compared to other
years of using. Male is 67% which is highest in this category and lowest is Feale
which is 58%, however; in the category 1-4 years, Female is 20% and lowest is Male
with 19%. For Less than 1 year of using and Gender, Female has the highest value of
22% and Male has the lowest value of 14%. The patterns clearly indicates a
significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi
244
square value is 3.176 and sig value is .20 (> .05), hence difference is statistically not
significant at 5% level of significance.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Years of Using INDEST E-Resources by gender of
the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square= 3.176, df = 2
and Sig Value = 0.20)
Table 5.13.3 Years of Using by Gender
S/N Years of using INDEST Gender
Total Male Female
1 Less than 1 yr 46 (14) 14 (22) 60 (15)
2 1-4 years 64 (19) 13 (20) 77 (19)
3 More than 4 years 238 (67) 36 (58) 274 (66)
Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=3.176; df=2; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.20
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.13.4 Years of Using by Computer Literacy
Table 5.13.4 shows the cross tabulation between Computer Literacy and Years
of using, More than 4 years of using across Computer Literacy is higher compared to
other years of using. ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 70% which is highest in this
category and lowest is ‘Expert’ and ‘Good’ Computer Literacy which is 64% each,
however; in the category 1-4 years, ‘Good’ Computer Literacy is 21% and lowest is
‘Average’ Computer Literacy group with 11%. For Less than 1 year of using, and
Computer Literacy, ‘Average’ has the highest value of 25% and ‘Expert’ has the
lowest value of 12%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to
prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 4.704 and sig value is .32
(> .05), hence difference is statistically not significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Years of Using INDEST E-Resources by Computer
Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=
4.704a, df = 4 and Sig Value = 0.32)
245
Table 5.13.4 Years of Using by Computer Literacy
S/N Years of using INDEST Computer Literacy
Total Expert Good Average
1 Less than 1 yr 14 (12) 39 (15) 7 (25) 60 (15)
2 1-4 years 20 (17) 54 (21) 3 (11) 77 (19)
3 More than 4 years 86 (70) 170 (64) 18 (64) 274 (66)
Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=4.704; df=4; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.32
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.13.5 Years of Using by Age in Years
Table 5.13.5 shows the cross tabulation between Age and Years of
using, More than 4 years across Age is higher compared to other years of using. 46-55
age group is 84% which is highest in this category and lowest is 25-35 age group
which is 46%, however; in the category 1-4 years, 36-45 years is 27% and lowest is
>56 age group with 9%. For less than 1 year and age group, 25-35 years has the
highest value of 34% and 46-55 has the lowest value of 8%. The patterns clearly
indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is
employed, the chi square value is 48.890 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference
is statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Years of Using INDEST E-Resources by Age of
the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square= 48.890, df = 6
and Sig Value = 0.00)
Table 5.13.5 Years of Using by Age in Years
S/N Years of using
INDEST
Age In Years Total
25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
1 Less than 1 yr 27 (34) 14 (9) 7 (8) 12 (17) 60 (15)
2 1-4 years 16 (20) 43 (27) 8 (9) 9 (13) 76 (19)
3 More than 4 years 38 (46) 108 (64) 78 (84) 51 (70) 275 (66)
Total 81 (100) 165(100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=48.890; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
246
5.13.6 Summary
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) years of using of INDEST E-
Resources among faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics like Name of
IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy/ computer qualification.
Summary of section5.13indicates that between IIT’s and Years of Using, More than 4
years of using across IIT is higher compared to other years of using. IIT-Kharagpur is
80% which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT Bombay which is 47%the chi
square value is 68.725 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically
significant (Table 5.13.1), between Designation and Years of using, More than 4 years
of using across Designation is higher compared to other years of using. Professor is
79% which is highest in this category and lowest is Assistant Professor which is
54%the chi square value is 46.367 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are
statistically significant(Table 5.13.2), between Gender and Years of using, More than
4 years of using across Designation is higher compared to other years of using. Male
is 67% which is highest in this category and lowest is Feale which is 58%the chi
square value is 3.176 and sig value is .20 (> .05), hence difference is statistically not
significant at 5% level of significance (Table 5.13.3), between Computer Literacy and
Years of using, More than 4 years of using across Computer Literacy is higher
compared to other years of using. ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 70% which is highest
in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’ and ‘Good’ Computer Literacy which is 64%
each the chi square value is 4.704 and sig value is .32 (> .05), hence difference is
statistically not significant (Table 5.13.4), between Age and Years of using, More than
4 years across Age is higher compared to other years of using. 46-55 age groups are
84% which is highest in this category and lowest is 25-35 age groups which is
46%the chi square value is 48.890 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is
statistically significant(Table 5.13.5).
247
SECTION 14
FORMAT USED TO DOWNLOAD INDEST E-RESOURCES AMONG
FACULTY OF TOP SEVEN IITs
5.14.0 Introduction
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) format used to download
INDEST E-Resources among faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics
like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy/ computer
qualification.
Hypothesis – XIII
Ho: There is no significant difference between Format use (PDF, HTML) and
different demographics (Name of IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer
literacy)
Ha: There is significant difference between Format use (PDF, HTML) and different
demographics (Name of IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy)
5.14.1 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Name of the IIT
Table 5.14.1 shows the cross tabulation between IIT’s and Format of INDEST
E-Resources used, PDF format across IIT is higher compared to other formats. IIT-
Roorkee is 97% which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT Delhi which is
66%, however; in the category HTML/SGML, IIT Delhi is 34% and lowest is IIT
Roorkee with 3%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to
prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 36.736 and sig value is .000
(< .05), hence difference are statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Format use to download of INDEST E-Resources
by IIT’s of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=
36.736, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.00)
248
Table 5.14.1 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Name of the IIT
S/
N
Format of
INDEST
E-
Resources
used
Name of the IIT
Total IITKG
P IITB
IIT
M IITK IITD IITG IITR
1 PDF 42 (91) 96
(94)
80
(92)
28
(77)
24
(66)
50
(71)
33
(97)
353
(85)
2 HTML/SG
ML 4 (9) 6 (6) 7 (8) 8 (23)
12
(34)
20
(29) 1 (3) 58 (15)
Total 46(100) 102(10
0)
87(1
00)
36(10
0)
36(10
0)
70(10
0)
34(10
0)
411
(100)
Pearson Chi-Square=36.736; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT
Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
5.14.2 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Designation
Table 5.14.2 shows the cross tabulation between Designation and Format of
INDEST E-Resources used PDF across Designation is higher compared to
HTML/SGML. Assistant Professor is 91% which is highest in this category and
lowest is Associate Professor which is 78%, however; in the category HTML/SGML,
Associate Professor is 22% and lowest is Assistant Professor with 9%. The patterns
clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is
employed, the chi square value is 8.603 and sig value is .01 (< .05), hence difference
are statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Format use to download of INDEST E-Resources
by Designation of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-
Square= 8.603, df = 2 and Sig Value = 0.01)
249
Table 5.14.2 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Designation
S/N Format of INDEST
E- Resources used
Designation
Total Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
1 PDF 148 (84) 74 (78) 131 (91) 353 (85)
2 HTML/SGML 26 (16) 20 (22) 12 (9) 58 (15)
Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=8.603; df=2; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.01
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.14.3 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Gender
Table 5.14.3 shows the cross tabulation between Gender and Format of
INDEST E-Resources used, PDF format across Designation is higher compared to
other formats. Male is 88% which is highest in this category and lowest is Female
which is 68%, however; in the category HTML/SGML, Female is 32% and lowest is
Male with 12%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to
prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 17.178 and sig value is .00
(< .05), hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of significance.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Format use to download of INDEST E-Resources
by Gender of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=
17.178, df = 1 and Sig Value = 0.00)
Table 15.14.3 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Gender
S/N Format of INDEST E-
Resources used
Gender Total
Male Female
1 PDF 309 (88) 43 (68) 352 (85)
2 HTML/SGML 39 (12) 20 (32) 59 (15)
Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=17.178; df=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
250
5.14.4 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Age in Years
Table 5.14.4 shows the cross tabulation between Age and Format of INDEST
E-Resources used; PDF is higher compared to HTML/SGML. >56 age group is 99%
which is highest in this category and lowest is 46-55 age group which is 66%,
however; in the category HTML/SGML, 46-55 years is 34% and lowest is >56 age
group with 1%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to
prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 43.445 and sig value is .00
(< .05), hence difference is statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Format use to download of INDEST E-Resources
by Age of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=
43.445, df = 3 and Sig Value = 0.00)
Table 5.14.4 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Age in Years
S/N
Format of
INDEST E-
Resources used
Age In Years
Total 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
1 PDF 76 (94) 144 (87) 61 (66) 71 (99) 352 (85)
2 HTML/SGML 5 (6) 21 (13) 32 (34) 1 (1) 59 (15)
Total 81 (100) 165 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=43.445; df=3; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.14.5 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Computer Literacy
Table 5.14.5 shows the cross tabulation between Computer Literacy and
Format of INDEST E-Resources used. PDF across Computer Literacy is higher
compared to HTML/SGML. ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 100% which is highest
in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’ and ‘Good’ Computer Literacy which is 16%
each however; in the category HTML/SGML, ‘Expert’ and ‘Good’ Computer Literacy
is 16% and lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy group with 0%. The patterns
clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is
employed, the chi square value is 5.215 and sig value is .07 (> .05), hence difference
is statistically not significant.
251
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Format use to download of INDEST E-Resources
by Computer Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association
(Chi-Square= 5.215, df = 2 and Sig Value = 0.07)
Table 5.14.5 Format of INDEST E-Resources do you use by Computer Literacy
S/N Format of INDEST
E- Resources used
Computer Literacy Total
Expert Good Average
1 PDF 102 (84) 222 (84) 28 (100) 352 (85)
2 HTML/SGML 18 (16) 41 (16) 0 (0) 59 (15)
Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=5.215; df=2; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.07
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.14.6 Summary
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) format used to download
INDEST E-Resources among faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics
like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy/ computer
qualification. Summary of section 5.14 indicates that between IIT’s and Format of
INDEST E-Resources used, PDF format across IIT is higher compared to other
formats. IIT-Roorkee is 97% which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT Delhi
which is 66%the chi square value is 36.736 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence
difference are statistically significant (Table 5.14.1), between Designation and Format
of INDEST E-Resources used PDF across Designation is higher compared to
HTML/SGML. Assistant Professor is 91% which is highest in this category and
lowest is Associate Professor which is 78%the chi square value is 8.603 and sig value
is .01 (< .05), hence difference are statistically significant(Table 5.14.2), between
Gender and Format of INDEST E-Resources used, PDF format across Designation is
higher compared to other formats. Male is 88% which is highest in this category and
lowest is Female which is 68%the chi square value is 17.178 and sig value is .00 (<
.05), hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of significance(Table
5.14.3), between Age and Format of INDEST E-Resources used; PDF is higher
compared to HTML/SGML. >56 age group is 99% which is highest in this category
and lowest is 46-55 age group which is 66%the chi square value is 43.445 and sig
value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant(Table 5.14.4), between
252
Computer Literacy and Format of INDEST E-Resources used. PDF across Computer
Literacy is higher compared to HTML/SGML. ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 100%
which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’ and ‘Good’ Computer Literacy
which is 16% each the chi square value is 5.215 and sig value is .07 (> .05), hence
difference is statistically not significant(Table 5.14.5).
253
SECTION 15
COMPONENTS OF INDEST E-RESOURCES USED BY FACULTY OF TOP
SEVEN IITs
5.15.0 Introduction
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) components of INDEST E-
Resources used by faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics like Name of
IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy/ computer qualification.
Hypothesis – XIV
Ho: There is no significant difference between Components (Table of contents,
abstract, full text, article references) and different demographics (Name of
IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy)
Ha: There is significant difference between Components (Table of contents,
abstract, full text, article references) and different demographics (Name of
IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy)
5.15.1 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Name of the IIT
Table 5.15.1 showed the cross tabulation IIT’s and Components of INDEST E-
Resources, Full Text across IIT is higher compared to other formats. IIT-Delhi is 97%
which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT Kharagpur which is 67%,
however; in the category Abstract, IIT Kharagpur is 29% and lowest is IIT Delhi with
3%. For ‘Table of Contents’, and IIT, IIT Kharagpur has the highest value of 4% and
IIT Kanpur, IIT Delhi and IIT Roorkee has the lowest value of 0%. For Article
References, IIT Guwahati has the highest value of 12% and IIT Roorkee, IIT Delhi,
IIT Madras, IIT Bombay and IIT Kharagpur has 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a
significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi
square value is 55.217 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically
significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Components of INDEST E-Resources by IIT’s of
the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square= 55.217, df =
18 and Sig Value = 0.00)
254
Table 5.15.1 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Name of the IIT
S/N Components of INDEST
E-Resources
Name of the IIT
Total
IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
1 Table of contents 2 (4) 2 (2) 2 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (3) 0 (0) 8 (2)
2 Abstract 13 (29) 14 (15) 9 (10) 2 (6) 1 (3) 8 (12) 4 (12) 51 (13)
3 Full Text 31 (67) 86 (83) 76 (87) 33 (92) 35 (97) 52 (74) 30 (88) 343 (83)
4 Article References 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 8 (12) 0 (0) 9 (2)
Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 87 (100) 36 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=55.217; df=18; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
255
5.15.2 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Designation
Table 5.15.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and
Components of INDEST E-Resources, ‘Full Text’ across Designation is higher
compared to other components. Assistant Professor is 88% which is highest in this
category and lowest is Associate Professor which is 78%, however; in the category
Abstract, Associate Professor is 19% and lowest is Assistant Professor with 10%. For
Table of contents’, and Designation, Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant
Professor have the value of 2%. For Article References, Professor has the highest
value of 5% and Assistant Professor has 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a
significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi
square value is 13.203 and sig value is .04 (< .05), hence difference are statistically
significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Components of INDEST E-Resources by
Designation of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=
13.203a, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.04)
Table 5.15.2 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Designation
S/N Components of
INDEST E-Resources
Designation
Total Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
1 Table of contents 3 (2) 2 (2) 3 (2) 8 (2)
2 Abstract 20 (12) 17 (19) 14 (10) 52 (13)
3 Full Text 143 (81) 74 (78) 126 (88) 342 (83)
4 Article References 8 (5) 1 (1) 0(0) 9 (2)
Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=13.203a; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.04
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.15.3 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Gender
Table 5.15.3 showed the cross tabulation between Gender and Components of
INDEST E-Resources, Full Text across Designation is higher compared to other
components. Male is 88% which is highest in this category and lowest is female with
56%, however; in the category Abstract, Female is 30% and lowest is Male with
10%. For Table of contents’, and Gender, Female has the highest value of 3% and
Male has the lowest value of 2%. For Article References, Female has the highest value
256
of 11% and Male has 1%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in
order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 50.025 and sig
value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of
significance.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Components of INDEST E-Resources by Gender of
the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square= 50.025, df = 3
and Sig Value = 0.00)
Table 5.15.3 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Gender
S/N Components of INDEST E-
Resources
Gender Total
Male Female
1 Table of contents 6 (2) 2 (3) 8 (2)
2 Abstract 33 (10) 19 (30) 52 (13)
3 Full Text 307 (88) 35 (56) 342 (83)
4 Article References 2 (1) 7 (11) 9 (2)
Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=50.025; df=3; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.15.4 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Age in years
Table 5.15.4 shows the cross tabulation between Age and Components of
INDEST E-Resources, Full Text across Age is higher compared to other
components. 25-35 age group is 88% which is highest in this category and lowest is
36-45. 46-55 and >56 age group which is 82%, however; in the category Abstract, 36-
45 years is 15% and lowest is 25-35 years and 46-55 age group with 10%. For Table
of contents, and age group, >56 has the highest value of 6% and 46-55 has the lowest
value of 0%. For Article References, 46-55 has the highest value of 9% and 25-35
years and >56 years has 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in
order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 30.867 and sig
value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Components of INDEST E-Resources by Age of
the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square= 30.867, df = 9
and Sig Value = 0.00)
257
Table 5.15.4 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Age in years
S/N
Components of
INDEST E-
Resources
Age In Years
Total 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
1 Table of contents 1 (1) 3 (2) 0 (0) 4 (6) 8 (2)
2 Abstract 8 (10) 24 (15) 9 (10) 9 (13) 50 (13)
3 Full Text 72 (88) 137 (82) 76 (82) 59 (82) 344 (83)
4 Article References 0 (0) 1 (1) 8 (9) 0 (0) 9 (2)
Total 81 (100) 165 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=30.867; df=9; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.15.5 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Computer Literacy
Table 5.15.5 showed the cross tabulation between Computer Literacy and
Components of INDEST E-Resources, Full Text across Computer Literacy is higher
compared to other components. ‘Average’ and ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 89%
which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Good’ Computer Literacy which is
79%, however; in the category Abstract, ‘Good’ Computer Literacy is 15% and lowest
is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy group with 4%. For Table of Contents’, and
Computer Literacy, ‘Average’ has the highest value of 7% and ‘Expert’ has the lowest
value of 1%. For Article References, ‘Good’ has the highest value of 4%, ‘Average’
and ‘Expert’ has 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to
prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 13.933 and sig value is .03
(< .05), hence difference is statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Components of INDEST E-Resources by Computer
Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=
13.933, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.03)
Table 5.15.5 Components of INDEST E-Resources by Computer Literacy
S/N
Components of
INDEST E-
Resources
Computer Literacy
Total Expert Good Average
1 Table of contents 1 (1) 5 (2) 2 (7) 8 (2)
2 Abstract 12 (10) 39 (15) 1 (4) 52 (13)
3 Full Text 107 (89) 210 (79) 25 (89) 342 (83)
4 Article References 0 (0) 9 (4) 0 (0) 9 (2)
Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=13.933; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.03 (Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
258
5.15.6 Summary
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) components of INDEST E-
Resources used by faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics like Name of
IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy/ computer qualification.
Summary of section5.15indicates that between IIT’s and Components of INDEST E-
Resources, Full Text across IIT is higher compared to other formats. IIT-Delhi is 97%
which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT Kharagpur which is 67%the chi
square value is 55.217 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically
significant (Table 5.15.1), between Designation and Components of INDEST E-
Resources, ‘Full Text’ across Designation is higher compared to other
components. Assistant Professor is 88% which is highest in this category and lowest is
Associate Professor which is 78%the chi square value is 13.203 and sig value is .04 (<
.05), hence difference are statistically significant(Table 5.15.2), between Gender and
Components of INDEST E-Resources, Full Text across Designation is higher
compared to other components. Male is 88% which is highest in this category and
lowest is female with 56%the chi square value is 50.025 and sig value is .00 (< .05),
hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of significance(Table 5.15.3),
between Age and Components of INDEST E-Resources, Full Text across Age is
higher compared to other components. 25-35 age group is 88% which is highest
the chi square value is 30.867 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is
statistically significant(Table 5.15.4), between Computer Literacy and Components of
INDEST E-Resources, Full Text across Computer Literacy is higher compared to
other components. ‘Average’ and ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 89% which is highest
in this category and lowest is ‘Good’ Computer Literacy which is 79%the chi
square value is 13.933 and sig value is .03 (< .05), hence difference is statistically
significant(Table 5.15.5).
259
SECTION 16
FEATURES USED TO SEARCHINDEST E-RESOURCES USED BY
FACULTY OF TOP SEVEN IITs
5.16.0 Introduction
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) features used to search INDEST
E-Resources used by faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics like Name
of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy.
Hypothesis – XV
Ho: There is no significant difference between Features use in searching INDEST E-
Resources (Author, Title, Journal Name, and Subject) and different
demographics (Name of IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy)
Ha: There is significant difference between Features use in searching INDEST E-
Resources (Author, Title, Journal Name and Subject) and different
demographics (Name of IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy)
5.16.1 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by Name of
the IIT
Table 5.16.1 showed the cross tabulation between IIT’s and Main feature you
use when searching INDEST E-Resources, Author across IIT is higher compared to
other features. IIT-Roorkee is 59% which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT
Madras which is 40%, however; in the category Journal Name, IIT Kharagpur and IIT
Madras is 47% and lowest is IIT Guwahati with 7%. For ‘Title’, and IIT, IIT Kanpur
has the highest value of 33% and IIT Roorkee has the lowest value of 0%. For ISSN,
IIT Guwahati has the highest value of 24% and IIT Kharagpur has 2%. The patterns
clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is
employed, the chi square value is 85.393 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence
difference are statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Features used to search INDEST E-Resources by
IIT’s of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=
85.393, df = 18 and Sig Value = 0.00)
260
Table 5.16.1 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by Name of the IIT
S/N
Feature used
to search
INDEST
Name of the IIT
Total IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
1 Author 22 (49) 48 (51) 34 (40) 15 (42) 16 (46) 32 (46) 20 (59) 187 (47)
2 Title 1 (2) 6 (6) 8 (9) 12 (33) 4 (11) 16 (23) 0 (0) 47 (12)
3 Journal name 22 (47) 33 (27) 41 (47) 3 (8) 14 (37) 5 (7) 11 (32) 129 (30)
4 ISSN 1 (2) 15 (16) 4 (5) 6 (17) 2 (6) 17 (24) 3 (9) 48 (12)
Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 87 (100) 3 6 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=85.393; df=18; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
261
5.16.2 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by
Designation
Table 5.16.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and Main
feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources, Author across Designation is
higher compared to other features used. Assistant Professor is 60% which is highest in
this category and lowest is Professor which is 34%, however; in the category Journal
Name, Professor is 36% and lowest is Assistant Professor with 23%. For Title and
Designation, Associate Professor has the highest value of 18% and Assistant Professor
has the lowest value of 9%. For ISSN, Professor has the highest value of 18% and
Associate Professor has 6%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference in
order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 29.102 and sig
value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Features used to search INDEST E-Resources by
designation of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=
29.102, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.00)
Table 5.16.2 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by
Designation
S/N Feature used to
search INDEST
Designation
Total Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
1 Author 56 (34) 46 (49) 86 (60) 188 (46)
2 Title 19 (12) 17 (18) 12 (9) 48 (12)
3 Journal name 69 (36) 25 (27) 33 (23) 127 (30)
4 ISSN 30 (18) 6 (6) 12 (9) 48 (12)
Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=29.102; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.16.3 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by Gender
Table 5.16.3 shows the cross tabulation between Gender and Main feature you
use when searching INDEST E-Resources, Author across Designation is higher
compared to other features used. Male is 47% which is highest in this category and
262
lowest is Female which is 44%, however; in the category Journal Name, Male is 31%
and lowest is Female with 21%. For Title and Gender, Male has the highest value of
12% and Female has the lowest value of 11%. For ISSN, Female has the highest value
of 24% and Male has 10%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in
order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 10.243 and sig
value is .02 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of
significance.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Features used to search INDEST E-Resources by
gender of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square=
10.243, df = 3 and Sig Value = 0.02)
Table 5.16.3 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by
Gender
S/N Feature used to search
INDEST
Gender Total
Male Female
1 Author 158 (47) 28 (44) 186 (47)
2 Title 40(12) 7 (11) 47 (12)
3 Journal name 116 (31) 13 (21) 129 (30)
4 ISSN 34 (10) 15 (24) 49 (12)
Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=10.243; df=3; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.02
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.16.4 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by Age in
Years
Table 5.16.4 showed the cross tabulation between Age and Main feature you
use when searching INDEST E-Resources, author across Age is higher compared to
other features used. 25-35 age group is 60% which is highest in this category and
lowest is >56 age group which is 28%, however; in the category Journal Name, >56
years is 42% and lowest is 366-45 age group with 22%. For Title and age group, 36-
45 has the highest value of 15% and 25-35 has the lowest value of 6%. For ISSN, >56
has the highest value of 23% and 36-45 has 7%. The patterns clearly indicates a
significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi
263
square value is 39.495 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically
significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Features used to search INDEST E-Resources by
Age of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-Square= 39.495,
df = 9 and Sig Value = 0.00)
Table 5.16.4 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by Age
in Years
S/N Feature used to
search INDEST
Age In Years Total
25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
1 Author 50 (60) 95 (55) 31 (34) 20 (28) 196 (47)
2 Title 5 (7) 24 (15) 13 (14) 5 (7) 47 (12)
3 Journal name 18 (23) 35 (23) 35 (37) 31 (42) 119 (30)
4 ISSN 8 (10) 11 (7) 14 (15) 16 (23) 49 (12)
Total 81 (100) 165 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=39.495; df=9; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.16.5 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by Computer
Literacy
Table 5.18.5 shows the cross tabulation between Computer Literacy and Main
feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources, Author across Computer
Literacy is higher compared to other features. ‘Good’ Computer Literacy is 48%
which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy which is
39%, however; in the category Journal Name, ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 37% and
lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy group with 0%. For Title and Computer
Literacy, ‘Average’ has the highest value of 32% and ‘Expert’ has the lowest value of
7%. For ISSN, ‘Average’ has the highest value of 29% and ‘Expert’ and ‘Good’ has
11% each. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove
this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 30.047 and sig value is .00 (< .05),
hence difference is statistically significant.
264
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Features used to search INDEST E-Resources by
Computer Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-
Square= 30.047, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.00)
Table 5.16.5 Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources by
Computer Literacy
S/N Feature used to search
INDEST
Computer Literacy Total
Expert Good Average
1 Author 53 (45) 128 (48) 11 (39) 193 (47)
2 Title 8 (7) 29 (11) 9 (32) 46 (12)
3 Journal name 43 (37) 79(30) 0 (0) 124 (30)
4 ISSN 13 (11) 27 (11) 8 (29) 48 (12)
Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=30.047; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.16.6 Summary
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) features used to search INDEST
E-Resources used by faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics like Name
of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy/ computer qualification.
Summary of section5.16 indicates that between IIT’s and Main feature you use when
searching INDEST E-Resources, Author across IIT is higher compared to other
features. IIT Roorkee is 59% which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT
Madras which is 40% the chi square value is 85.393 and sig value is .000 (< .05),
hence difference are statistically significant (Table 5.16.1), between Designation and
Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources, Author across
Designation is higher compared to other features used. Assistant Professor is 60%
which is highest in this category and lowest is Professor which is 34%the chi
square value is 29.102 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically
significant (Table 5.16.2), between Gender and Main feature you use when searching
INDEST E-Resources, Author across Designation is higher compared to other features
used. Male is 47% which is highest in this category and lowest is Female which is
44%the chi square value is 10.243 and sig value is .02 (< .05), hence difference is
265
statistically significant at 5% level of significance (Table 5.16.3), between Age and
Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-Resources, author across Age is
higher compared to other features used. 25-35 age group is 60% which is highest in
this category and lowest is >56 age group which is 28%the chi square value is 39.495
and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant (Table 5.16.4),
between Computer Literacy and Main feature you use when searching INDEST E-
Resources, Author across Computer Literacy is higher compared to other
features. ‘Good’ Computer Literacy is 48% which is highest in this category and
lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy which is 39%the chi square value is 30.047
and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant (Table 5.16.5).
266
SECTION 17
NUMBER OF ARTICLES FROM INDEST E-RESOURCES READ IN A
WEEK BY FACULTY OF TOP SEVEN IITs
5.17.0 Introduction
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) No. of articles from INDEST E-
Resources read in a week by faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics
like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy.
Hypothesis – XVI
Ho: There is no significant difference between usage of INDEST (number of article)
and different demographics (Name of the IITs, Designation, Gender, Age,
Computer literacy)
Ha: There is significant difference between usage of INDEST (number of article)
and different demographics (Name of the IITs, Designation, Gender, Age,
Computer literacy)
5.17.1 Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a week by
Name of the IIT
Table 5.17.1 showed the cross tabulation between IIT’s and Number of articles
from INDEST E-Resources read in a week, ‘Less than 5’ across IIT is higher
compared to other number of articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a
week. IIT-Kanpur is 69% which is highest in this category and lowest is IIT
Kharagpur which is 16%, however; in the category ‘5-10’, IIT Kharagpur is 66% and
lowest is IIT Delhi with 9%. For 11-15 books and IIT, IIT Delhi has the highest value
of 43% and IIT Kanpur has the lowest value of 9%. For more than 15 books, IIT
Guwahati has the highest value of 15% and IIT Madras and Bombay has 1% each.
The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi
square is employed, the chi square value is 82.268 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence
difference are statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do
you read in a week by IIT’s of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant
association (Chi-Square= 82.268, df = 18 and Sig Value = 0.00)
267
Table 5.17.1 Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a week by Name of the IIT
S/N No of INDEST articles read in a
week
Name of the IIT
Total
IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
1 Less than 5 7 (16) 44 (42) 32 (37) 25 (69) 13 (37) 31(43) 18 (52) 170 (41)
2 5 to 10 31 (66) 40 (39) 32 (37) 7 (20) 3 (9) 19 (28) 7 (21) 139 (34)
3 11 to 15 6 (14) 17 (18) 22 (25) 3 (9) 16 (43) 8 (12) 7 (21) 79 (20)
4 More than 15 2 (5) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (3) 4 (11) 12 (17) 2 (6) 23 (6)
Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 87 (100) 36 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=82.268; df=18; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR=
IIT Roorkee
268
5.17.2 Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a week by
Designation
Table 5.17.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and Number of
articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a week, Less than 5 across Designation is
higher compared to other number of articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a
week. Associate Professor is 47% which is highest in this category and lowest is
Professor which is 36%, however; in the category 5-10 articles, Associate Professor is
37% and lowest is Professor with 30%. For 11-15 articles and Designation, Professor
has the highest value of 25% and Associate Professor has the lowest value of 13%.
For More than 15 articles, Professor has the highest value of 8% and Associate
Professor has 3%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to
prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 12.210 and sig value is .06
(> .05), hence difference are statistically not significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do
you read in a week by Designation of the respondents and all IITs have significant
association (Chi-Square= 12.210, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.06)
Table 5.17.2 Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a
week by Designation
S/N No of INDEST articles
read in a week
Designation
Total Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
1 Less than 5 6 (36) 45 (47) 60 (42) 168 (41)
2 5 to 10 52 (30) 34 (37) 52 (36) 138 (34)
3 11 to 15 45 (25) 12 (13) 25 (18) 82 (20)
4 More than 15 14 (8) 3 (3) 6 (4) 23 (6)
Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=12.210; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.06
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
269
5.17.3 Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a week by
Gender
Table 5.17.3 showed the cross tabulation between Gender and Number of
articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a week, Less than 5 across Gender is
higher compared to other Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a
week. Female is 43% which is highest in this category and lowest is Male which is
40%, however; in the category 5-10, Male is 35% and lowest is Female with 27%. For
11-15 articles’ and Gender, Male has the highest value of 21% and Female has the
lowest value of 10%. For More than 15 articles, Female has the highest value of 21%
and Male has 3%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to
prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 31.562 and sig value is .00
(< .05), hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of significance.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do
you read in a week by Gender of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant
association (Chi-Square= 31.562, df = 3 and Sig Value = 0.00)
Table 5.17.3 Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a
week by Gender
S/N No of INDEST articles
read in a week
Gender Total
Male Female
1 Less than 5 141 (40) 27 (43) 168 (41)
2 5 to 10 124 (35) 17 (27) 141 (34)
3 11 to 15 72 (21) 6 (10) 78 (20)
4 More than 15 11 (3) 13 (21) 24 (6)
Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=31.562; df=3; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.17.4 Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a week by
Age in years
Table 5.17.4 showed the cross tabulation between Age and Number of articles
from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a week, Less than 5 articles read across
Age is higher compared to other number of articles read. 36-45 age group is 45%
270
which is highest in this category and lowest is 46-55 age group which is 33%,
however; in the category 5-10 articles, 2-35,36-45 and 46-55 years is 35% and lowest
is >56 age group with 28%. For 11-15 articles and age group, >56 has the highest
value of 28% and 36-45 has the lowest value of 15%. For more than 15 articles, 46-55
has the highest value of 10% and >56 years has 3%. The patterns clearly indicates a
significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi
square value is 12.413 and sig value is .19 (> .05), hence difference is statistically not
significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do
you read in a week by Age of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant
association (Chi-Square= 12.413, df = 9 and Sig Value = 0.19)
Table 5.17.4 Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a
week by Age in years
S/N No of INDEST
articles read in a week
Age In Years Total
25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
1 Less than 5 35 (42) 75 (45) 30 (33) 30 (41) 170 (41)
2 5 to 10 28 (35) 54 (35) 33 (35) 20 (28) 140 (33)
3 11 to 15 15 (19) 23 (15) 21 (23) 20 (28) 79 (20)
4 More than 15 3 (4) 8 (5) 9 (10) 2 (3) 22 (6)
Total 81 (100) 165 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=12.413; df=9; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.19
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.17.5 Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a week by
Computer Literacy
Table 5.17.5 showed the cross tabulation between Computer Literacy and
Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a week, Less than 5
articles across Computer Literacy is higher compared to other number of articles
read. ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 57% which is highest in this category and
lowest is ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy which is 29%, however; in the category 5-10
articles, ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 41% and lowest is ‘Average’ Computer
Literacy group with 21%. For 11-15 articles and Computer Literacy, ‘Expert’ has the
271
highest value of 25% and ‘Average’ has the lowest value of 11%. For More than 15
articles, ‘Average’ has the highest value of 11% and ‘Expert’ has 4%. The patterns
clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is
employed, the chi square value is 15.122 and sig value is .02 (< .05), hence difference
is statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do
you read in a week by Computer Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have
significant association (Chi-Square= 15.122, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.02)
Table 5.17.5 Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources do you read in a
week by Computer Literacy
S/N No of INDEST articles
read in a week
Computer Literacy Total
Expert Good Average
1 Less than 5 35 (29) 118 (45) 16 (57) 169 (41)
2 5 to 10 50 (41) 84 (32) 6 (21) 140 (34)
3 11 to 15 30 (25) 46 (18) 3 (11) 79 (20)
4 More than 15 5 (4) 15 (6) 3 (11) 23 (6)
Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411(100)
Pearson Chi-Square=15.122; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.02
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.17.6 Summary
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) No. of articles from INDEST E-
Resources read in a week by faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics
like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy. Summary of
section5.17indicates that between IIT’s and Number of articles from INDEST E-
Resources read in a week, ‘Less than 5’ across IIT is higher compared to other number
of articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a week. IIT-Kanpur is 69% which is
highest in this category and lowest is IIT Kharagpur which is 16%the chi square value
is 82.268 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically significant
(Table 5.17.1), between Designation and Number of articles from INDEST E-
Resources read in a week, Less than 5 across Designation is higher compared to other
number of articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a week. Associate Professor is
272
47% which is highest in this category and lowest is Professor which is 36%the chi
square value is 12.210 and sig value is .06 (> .05), hence difference are statistically
not significant (Table 5.17.2), between Gender and Number of articles from INDEST
E-Resources read in a week, Less than 5 across Gender is higher compared to other
Number of articles from INDEST E-Resources read in a week. Female is 43% which
is highest in this category and lowest is Male which is 40%, however; in the category
5-10, Male is 35% and lowest is Female with 27%the chi square value is 31.562 and
sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of
significance (Table 5.17.3), between Age and Number of articles from INDEST E-
Resources do you read in a week, Less than 5 articles read across Age is higher
compared to other number of articles read. 36-45 age group is 45% which is highest in
this category and lowest is 46-55 age group which is 33%the chi square value is
12.413 and sig value is .19 (> .05), hence difference is statistically not significant
(Table 5.17.4), between Computer Literacy and Number of articles from INDEST E-
Resources do you read in a week, Less than 5 articles across Computer Literacy is
higher compared to other number of articles read. ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is
57% which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy which
is 29%the chi square value is 15.122 and sig value is .02 (< .05), hence difference is
statistically significant (Table 5.17.5).
273
SECTION 18
AVG. TIME SPENT IN A WEEK ON READING ARTICLES FROM INDEST
E-RESOURCES BY FACULTY OF TOP SEVEN IITs
5.18.0 Introduction
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) avg. time spent in a week on
reading articles from INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs with different
demographics like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy.
Hypothesis – XVII
Ho: There is no significant difference between usage of INDEST (average time) and
different demographics (Name of the IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer
literacy)
Ha: There is significant difference between usage of INDEST (average time) and
different demographics (Name of the IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, Computer
literacy)
5.18.1 Avg. time do you spend in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-
Resources by Name of the IIT
Table 5.18.1 showed the cross tabulation between IIT’s and Average time
spent in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, More than 4 hours is
higher compared to time spent, IIT Kharagpur is 73% and lowest is IIT Kanpur with
8% however; in the category 1-2 hours and IIT, IIT Madras and Bombay has the
highest value of 45% each and IIT Roorkee has the lowest value of 9%. For 2-4 hours,
IIT Bombay has the highest value of 36% and IIT Madras, Delhi and Roorkee has 9%
each. For less than 1 hour across IIT, IIT-Roorkee is 50% which is highest in this
category and lowest is IIT Kharagpur which is 0%, The patterns clearly indicates a
significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed the chi
square value is 159.073 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically
significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Avg. time spend in a week on reading articles from
INDEST E-Resources by IIT’s of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant
association (Chi-Square= 159.073, df = 18 and Sig Value = 0.00)
274
Table 5.18.1 Avg. time do you spend in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources by Name of the IIT
S/N
Avg. time spent in a
week on reading
INDEST article
Name of the IIT
Total
IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
1 Less than 1 hour 0 (0) 5 (5) 5 (6) 13 (36) 6 (18) 5 (7) 17 (50) 51 (13)
2 1-2 hours 7 (16) 47 (45) 40 (45) 9 (25) 6 (18) 24 (35) 3 (9) 136 (33)
3 2-4 hours 5 (11) 37 (36) 8 (9) 11 (31) 3 (9) 12 (17) 3 (9) 79 (19)
4 More than 4 hours 34 (73) 13 (14) 34 (40) 3 (8) 21 (56) 29 (41) 11 (32) 145 (35)
Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 87 (100) 36 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=159.073; df=18; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati,
IITR= IIT Roorkee
275
5.18.2 Avg. time do you spend in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-
Resources by Designation
Table 5.18.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and Average
time spent in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, ‘More than 4
hours’ across Designation is higher compared to other time spent. Professor is 46%
which is highest in this category and lowest is Associate Professor which is 23%,
however; in the category 1-2 hours, Associate Professor is 39% and lowest is
Professor with 27%. For 2-4 hours and Designation, Associate Professor has the
highest value of 32% and Professor has the lowest value of 14%. For less than 1 hour,
Assistant Professor has the highest value of 17% and Associate Professor has 5%. The
patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is
employed, the chi square value is 31.548 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence
difference are statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Avg. time spend in a week on reading articles from
INDEST E-Resources by Designation of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant
association (Chi-Square= 31.548, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.00)
Table 5.18.2 Avg. time do you spend in a week on reading articles from INDEST
E-Resources by Designation
S/N
Avg. time spent in a
week on reading
INDEST article
Designation
Total Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
1 Less than 1 hour 22 (13) 5 (5) 24 (17) 51 (13)
2 1-2 hours 48 (27) 37 (39) 53 (37) 138 (33)
3 2-4 hours 23 (14) 30 (32) 22 (16) 75 (19)
4 More than 4 hours 81 (46) 22 (23) 44(30) 147 (35)
Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=31.548; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
276
5.18.3 Avg. time do you spend in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-
Resources by Gender
Table 5.18.3 showed the cross tabulation between Gender and Average time
spent in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, More than 4 hours
across Designation is higher compared to other factors. Female is 46% which is
highest in this category and lowest is Male which is 33%, however; in the category 1-
2 hours, Male is 34% and lowest is Female with 30%. For 2-4 hours and Gender, Male
has the highest value of 19% and Female has the lowest value of 17%. For Less than 1
hour, Male has the highest value of 14% and Female has 6%. The patterns clearly
indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is
employed, the chi square value is 5.394 and sig value is .15 (> .05), hence difference
is statistically not significant at 5% level of significance.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Avg. time spend in a week on reading articles from
INDEST E-Resources by Gender of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant
association (Chi-Square= 5.394, df = 3 and Sig Value = 0.15)
Table 5.18.3 Avg. time do you spend in a week on reading articles from INDEST
E-Resources by Gender
S/N Avg. time spent in a week on
reading INDEST article
Gender
Total
Male Female
1 Less than 1 hour 47 (14) 4 (6) 51 (13)
2 1-2 hours 120 (34) 19 (30) 139 (33)
3 2-4 hours 65 (19) 11 (17) 76 (19)
4 More than 4 hours 116 (33) 29 (46) 145 (35)
Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=31.548; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
277
5.18.4 Avg. time do you spend in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-
Resources by Age in Years
Table 5.18.4 showed the cross tabulation between Age and Average time spent
in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, More than 4 hours across
Age is higher compared to other hours spent. 46-55 age group is 52% which is highest
in this category and lowest is 36-45 age group which is 28%, however; in the category
1-2 hours, 36-45 years is 44% and lowest is >56 age group with 24%. For 2-4 hours
and age group, 36-45 has the highest value of 23% and 46-55 has the lowest value of
13%. For less than 1 year, >56 has the highest value of 25% and 36-45 has 6%. The
patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is
employed, the chi square value is 41.876 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference
is statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Avg. time spend in a week on reading articles from
INDEST E-Resources by Age of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant
association (Chi-Square= 41.876, df = 9 and Sig Value = 0.00)
Table 15.18.4 Avg. time do you spend in a week on reading articles from INDEST
E-Resources by Age in Years
S/N
Avg. time spent in a
week on reading
INDEST article
Age In Years
Total 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
1 Less than 1 hour 16 (20) 9 (6) 8 (9) 18 (25) 51 (13)
2 1-2 hours 24 (29) 71 (44) 24 (26) 17 (24) 136 (33)
3 2-4 hours 16 (20) 39 (23) 12 (13) 13 (18) 80 (19)
4 More than 4 hours 25 (30) 46 (28) 49(52) 24 (33) 144 (35)
Total 81 (100) 165
(100) 93 (100) 72 (100)
411
(100)
Pearson Chi-Square=41.876; df=9; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.18.5 Avg. time do you spend in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-
Resources by Computer Literacy
Table 5.18.5 showed the cross tabulation between Computer Literacy and
Average time spent in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, More
278
than 4 hours across Computer Literacy is higher compared to other source of
awareness. ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 46% which is highest in this category and
lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy which is 21%, however; in the category 1-2
hours, ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 46% and lowest is ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy
group with 23%. For 2-4 hours and Computer Literacy, ‘Good’ has the highest value
of 20% and ‘Average’ has the lowest value of 14%. For Less than 1 hour, ‘Average’
has the highest value of 18% and ‘Expert’ and ‘Good’ has 13%. The patterns clearly
indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is
employed, the chi square value is 13.307 and sig value is .04 (< .05), hence difference
is statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Avg. time spend in a week on reading articles from
INDEST E-Resources by Computer Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have
significant association (Chi-Square= 13.407, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.04)
Table 5.18.5 Avg. time do you spend in a week on reading articles from INDEST
E-Resources by Computer Literacy
S/N
Avg. time spent in a week
on reading INDEST
article
Computer Literacy
Total Expert Good Average
1 Less than 1 hour 15 (13) 32 (13) 5 (18) 52 (13)
2 1-2 hours 26 (23) 97 (36) 13 (46) 136 (33)
3 2-4 hours 21 (18) 50 (20) 4 (14) 75 (19)
4 More than 4 hours 58 (46) 84 (32) 6 (21) 148 (35)
Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=13.407; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.04
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.18.6 Summary
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) avg. time spent in a week on
reading articles from INDEST E-Resources by faculty of top seven IITs with different
demographics like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy.
Summary of section5.18indicates that between IIT’s and Average time spent in a
week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, More than 4 hours is higher
compared to time spent, IIT Kharagpur is 73% and lowest is IIT Kanpur with
279
8%the chi square value is 159.073 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are
statistically significant (Table 5.18.1), between Designation and Average time spent in
a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, ‘More than 4 hours’ across
Designation is higher compared to other time spent. Professor is 46% which is highest
in this category and lowest is Associate Professor which is 23%the chi square value is
31.548 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically significant
(Table 5.18.2), between Gender and Average time spent in a week on reading articles
from INDEST E-Resources, More than 4 hours across Designation is higher compared
to other factors. Female is 46% which is highest in this category and lowest is Male
which is 33%the chi square value is 5.394 and sig value is .15 (> .05), hence
difference is statistically not significant at 5% level of significance (Table 5.18.3),
between Age and Average time spent in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-
Resources, More than 4 hours across Age is higher compared to other hours spent. 46-
55 age group is 52% which is highest in this category and lowest is 36-45 age group
which is 28%the chi square value is 41.876 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence
difference is statistically significant (Table 5.18.4), between Computer Literacy and
Average time spent in a week on reading articles from INDEST E-Resources, More
than 4 hours across Computer Literacy is higher compared to other source of
awareness. ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 46% which is highest in this category and
lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy which is 21%the chi square value is 13.307
and sig value is .04 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant (Table 5.18.5).
280
SECTION 19
RECOMMENDATION TO USE INDEST E-RESOURCES FROM FACULTY
(STUDENTS, COLLEAGUES, ETC) OF TOP SEVEN IITs
5.19.0 Introduction
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) recommendation to use INDEST
E-Resources from faculty (students, colleagues, etc.) of top seven IITs with different
demographics like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy.
Hypothesis – XVIII
Ho: There is no significant difference between Recommend to use INDEST (students
and colleagues) and different demographics (Name of the IITs, Designation,
Gender, Age, Computer literacy)
Ha: There is significant difference between Recommend to use INDEST (students
and colleagues) and different demographics (Name of the IITs, Designation,
Gender, Age, Computer literacy)
5.19.1 IIT Faculty Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others
(students, colleagues, etc.) by Name of the IIT
Table 5.19.1 showed the cross tabulation between IITs and IIT Faculty
Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues,
etc.), Yes for recommending across IIT is higher compared to No. IIT Kharagpur,
Bombay, Madras, Delhi, Guwahati and Roorkee is 100% which is highest in this
category and lowest is IIT Kanpur which is 94%, however; in the category No for
recommending INDEST, IIT Kanpur is 6% and all other IITs are with 0%. The
patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is
employed, the chi square value is 20.324 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence
difference are statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Recommendation to use (students, colleagues, etc.)
INDEST E-Resources by IITs of the respondents and all IITs have significant
association (Chi-Square= 20.324, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.00)
281
Table 5.19.1 IIT Faculty Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues, etc.) by Name of the IIT
S/N
Do you
Recommend to use
INDEST
Name of the IIT
Total
IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
1 Yes 46 (100) 102 (100) 86 (100) 34 (94) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 409 (99)
2 No 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1)
Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 86 (100) 36 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=20.324; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT
Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
282
5.19.2 IIT Faculty Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others
(students, colleagues, etc.) by Name of the IIT by Designation
Table 5.19.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and
recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues,
etc.), Yes for recommendation of INDEST across Designation is higher compared to
No. Associate and Assistant Professor is 100% which is highest in this category and
lowest is Professor which is 99%, however; in the category No, Professor is 1% and
lowest is Assistant and Associate Professor with 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a
significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi
square value is 2.863 and sig value is .24 (> .05), hence difference are statistically not
significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Recommendation to use (students, colleagues, etc.)
INDEST E-Resources by Designation of the respondents and all IITs have significant
association (Chi-Square= 2.863, df = 2 and Sig Value = 0.24)
5.19.2 IIT Faculty Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others
(students, colleagues, etc.) by Name of the IITs by Designation
S/N Do you Recommend to
use INDEST
Designation
Total Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
1 Yes 172 (99) 94 (100) 143 (100) 409 (99)
2 No 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1)
Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=2.863; df=2; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.24
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.19.3 IIT Faculty Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others
(students, colleagues, etc.) by Gender
Table 5.19.3 showed the cross tabulation between Gender and
recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues,
etc.), Yes for Recommendation across Gender is higher compared to No
recommendation. Female is 100% which is highest in this category and lowest is Male
which is 99%, however; in the category No, Male is 1% and lowest is Female with
283
0%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi
square is employed, the chi square value is 0.377 and sig value is .54 (> .05), hence
difference is statistically not significant at 5% level of significance.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Recommendation to use (students, colleagues, etc.)
INDEST E-Resources by Gender of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant
association (Chi-Square= .377, df = 1 and Sig Value = 0.54)
5.19.3 IIT Faculty Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others
(students, colleagues, etc.) by Gender
S/N Do you Recommend to use
INDEST
Gender Total
Male Female
1 Yes 346 (99) 63 (100) 409 (99)
2 No 2 (1) 0 (0) 2 (1)
Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=.377; df=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.54
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.19.4 IIT Faculty Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others
(students, colleagues, etc.) by Age in years
Table 5.19.4 showed the cross tabulation between Age and recommend
INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues, etc.), Yes for recommendation
across Age is higher compared to No. 25-35 and 36-45 age group is 100% which is
highest in this category and lowest is 46-55 and >56 age group which is 99%,
however; in the category No recommendation, 46-55 and >56 years is 1% and lowest
is 25-35 and 36-45 years with 0%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant
difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 2.981
and sig value is .39 (> .05), hence difference is statistically not significant at 5%.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Recommendation to use (students, colleagues, etc.)
INDEST E-Resources by Age of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant
association (Chi-Square= 2.981, df = 3 and Sig Value = 0.39)
284
5.19.4 IIT Faculty Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others
(students, colleagues, etc.) by Age in years
S/N Do you Recommend
to use INDEST
Age in years Total
25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
1 Yes 81 (100) 165 (100) 92 (99) 71 (99) 409 (99)
2 No 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 (1)
Total 81(100) 165 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=2.981; df=3; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.39
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.19.5 IIT Faculty Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others
(students, colleagues, etc.) by Computer Literacy
Table 5.19.5 showed the cross tabulation between Computer Literacy and
recommend INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues, etc.), Yes for
recommendation across Computer Literacy is higher compared to No
recommendation. ‘Good’ and ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 100% which is highest
in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy which is 98%, however; in
the category No recommendation, ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 2% and lowest is
‘Good’ and Average Computer Literacy group with 0%. The patterns clearly
indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is
employed, the chi square value is 5.008 and sig value is .08 (> .05), hence difference
is statistically not significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Recommendation to use (students, colleagues, etc.)
INDEST E-Resources by Computer Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have
significant association (Chi-Square= 5.008, df = 2 and Sig Value = 0.08)
5.19.5 Recommendation to use INDEST E-Resources to others (students,
colleagues, etc.) by Computer Literacy
S/N Do you Recommend
to use INDEST
Computer Literacy Total
Expert Good Average
1 Yes 118 (98) 263 (100) 28 (100) 409 (99)
2 No 2 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1)
Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=5.008; df=2; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.08
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
285
5.19.6 Summary
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) recommendation to use INDEST
E-Resources from faculty (students, colleagues, etc.) of top seven IITs with different
demographics like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy/
computer qualification. Summary of section 5.19 indicates that between IIT’s and
recommendation of INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues, etc.), Yes
for recommending across IIT is higher compared to No. IIT Kharagpur, Bombay,
Madras, Delhi, Guwahati and Roorkee is 100% which is highest in this category and
lowest is IIT Kanpur which is 94%the chi square value is 20.324 and sig value is .000
(< .05), hence difference are statistically significant (Table 5.19.1), between
Designation and if respondents would recommend INDEST E-Resources to others
(students, colleagues, etc.), Yes for recommendation of INDEST across Designation is
higher compared to No. Associate and Assistant Professor is 100% which is highest in
this category and lowest is Professor which is 99% the chi square value is 2.863 and
sig value is .24 (> .05), hence difference are statistically not significant (Table 5.19.2),
between Gender and recommend INDEST E-Resources to others (students,
colleagues, etc.), Yes for Recommendation across Gender is higher compared to No
recommendation. Female is 100% which is highest in this category and lowest is Male
which is 99%the chi square value is 0.377 and sig value is .54 (> .05), hence
difference is statistically not significant at 5% level of significance(Table 5.19.3),
between Age and recommend INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues,
etc.), Yes for recommendation across Age is higher compared to No. 25-35 and 36-45
age group is 100% which is highest in this category and lowest is 46-55 and >56 age
group which is 99% the chi square value is 2.981 and sig value is .39 (> .05), hence
difference is statistically not significant at 5% (Table 5.19.4), between Computer
Literacy and recommend INDEST E-Resources to others (students, colleagues,
etc.), Yes for recommendation across Computer Literacy is higher compared to No
recommendation. ‘Good’ and ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 100% which is highest
in this category and lowest is ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy which is 98%the chi
square value is 5.008 and sig value is .08 (> .05), hence difference is statistically not
significant(Table 5.19.5).
286
SECTION 20
NEED TO IMPROVE SKILLS TO USE INDEST E-RESOURCES BY THE
FACULTY OF TOP SEVEN IITs
5.20.0 Introduction
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) need to improve skills to use
INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics
like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy.
Hypothesis – XIX
Ho: There is no significant difference between Need to improve skill in the use of
INDEST E-Resources and different demographics (Name of the IITs,
Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy)
Ha: There is significant difference between Need to improve skill in the use of
INDEST E-Resources and different demographics (Name of the IITs,
Designation, Gender, Age, Computer literacy)
5.20.1 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Name of the
IIT
Table 5.20.1 showed the cross tabulation between IIT’s and Need to improve
skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources; no need to improve across IIT is higher
compared to need to improve skills. IIT-Madras is 83% which is highest in this
category and lowest is IIT Roorkee which is 32%, however; in the category Yes for
need to improve skills, IIT Roorkee is 68% and lowest is IIT Madras with 17%. The
patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is
employed, the chi square value is 40.214 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence
difference are statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-
Resources by IIT’s of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-
Square= 40.214, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.00)
287
Table 5.20.1 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Name of the IIT
S/N Need to improve Skills in
the use of INDEST
Name of the IIT
Total
IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
1 Yes 8 (18) 44 (43) 15 (17) 9 (26) 11 (31) 30 (43) 23 (68) 140 (34)
2 No 38 (82) 58 (57) 72 (83) 27 (74) 25 (69) 40(57) 11 (32) 271 (66)
Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 87 (100) 36 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=40.214; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT
Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
288
5.20.2 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Designation
Table 5.20.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and Need to
improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources, No across Designation is higher
compared to Yes. Assistant Professor is 69% which is highest in this category and
lowest is Professor which is 65%, however; in the category Yes, Associate Professor
is 39% and lowest is Assistant Professor with 31%.The patterns clearly indicates a
significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi
square value is 1.750 and sig value is .42 (> .05), hence difference are statistically not
significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-
Resources by Designation of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association
(Chi-Square= 1.750, df = 2 and Sig Value = 0.42)
Table 5.20.2 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by
Designation
S/N Need to improve Skills
in the use of INDEST
Designation
Total Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
1 Yes 58 (35) 36 (39) 43 (31) 137 (35)
2 No 116 (65) 58 (61) 100 (69) 274 (66)
Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=1.750; df=2; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.42
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.20.3 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Gender
Table 5.20.3 showed the cross tabulation between Gender and Need to
improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources, No across Designation is higher
compared to Yes. Male is 67% which is highest in this category and lowest is Female
which is 60%, however; in the category Yes, Female is 40% and lowest is Male with
33%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi
square is employed, the chi square value is 0.949 and sig value is .33 (> .05), hence
difference is statistically not significant at 5% level of significance.
289
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-
Resources by Gender of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association
(Chi-Square= .949, df = 1 and Sig Value = 0.33)
Table 5.20.3Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Gender
S/N Need to improve Skills in the
use of INDEST
Gender Total
Male Female
1 Yes 112 (33) 25 (40) 137 (34)
2 No 236 (67) 38 (60) 274 (66)
Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=.949; df=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.33
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.20.4 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Age in Years
Table 5.20.4 showed the cross tabulation between Age and Need to improve
skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources, No across Age is higher compared to
Yes. 46-55 age group is 76% which is highest in this category and lowest is 36-45 age
group which is 58%, however; in the category Yes, 36-45 years is 42% and lowest is
46-55 age group with 24%.The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in
order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 10.432 and sig
value is .02 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-
Resources by Age of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant association (Chi-
Square= 10.432, df = 3 and Sig Value = 0.02)
Table 5.20.4 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Age in
Years
S/N
Need to improve
Skills in the use of
INDEST
Age in years
Total 25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
1 Yes 22 (28) 65 (42) 22 (24) 28 (39) 137 (34)
2 No 59(72) 100 (58) 71 (76) 44 (61) 274 (66)
Total 81 (100) 165 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=10.432; df=3; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.02
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
290
5.20.5 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by Computer
Literacy
Table 5.20.5 showed the cross tabulation between Computer Literacy and
Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources, No across Computer
Literacy is higher compared to Yes. ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 76% which is
highest in this category and lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy which is 38%,
however; in the category Yes, ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 62% and lowest is
‘Expert’ Computer Literacy group with 24%. The patterns clearly indicates a
significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi
square value is 15.921 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically
significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-
Resources by Computer Literacy of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant
association (Chi-Square= 15.921, df = 2 and Sig Value = 0.00)
Table 5.20.5 Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources by
Computer Literacy
S/N Need to improve Skills in
the use of INDEST
Computer Literacy Total
Expert Good Average
1 Yes 27 (24) 92 (36) 18 (62) 137 (34)
2 No 93 (76) 171 (64) 10 (38) 274 (66)
Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=15.921; df=2; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.20.6 Summary
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) need to improve skills to use
INDEST E-Resources by the faculty of top seven IITs with different demographics
like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer literacy/ computer
qualification. Summary of the section 5.20 indicates that between IIT’s and Need to
improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources, No need to improve across IIT is
higher compared to need to improve skills. IIT-Madras is 83% which is highest in this
category and lowest is IIT Roorkee which is 32%the chi square value is 40.214 and
291
sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically significant (Table 5.20.1),
between Designation and Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-
Resources, No across Designation is higher compared to Yes. Assistant Professor is
69% which is highest in this category and lowest is Professor which is 65%the chi
square value is 1.750 and sig value is .42 (> .05), hence difference are statistically not
significant (Table 5.20.2), between Gender and Need to improve skill in the use of
INDEST E-Resources, No across Designation is higher compared to Yes. Male is 67%
which is highest in this category and lowest is Female which is 60%the chi
square value is 0.949 and sig value is .33 (> .05), hence difference is statistically not
significant at 5% level of significance (Table 5.20.3), between Age and Need to
improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources, No across Age is higher compared
to Yes. 46-55 age group is 76% which is highest in this category and lowest is 36-45
age group which is 58%the chi square value is 10.432 and sig value is .02 (< .05),
hence difference is statistically significant (Table 5.20.4), between Computer Literacy
and Need to improve skill in the use of INDEST E-Resources, No across Computer
Literacy is higher compared to Yes. ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 76% which is
highest in this category and lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy which is
38%the chi square value is 15.921 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is
statistically significant(Table 5.20.5).
292
SECTION 21
NEED TRAINING /ORIENTATION FOR EFFECTIVELY ACCESSING OF
INDEST E-RESOURCES USAGE BY FACULTY OF TOP SEVEN IITs
5.21.0 Introduction
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) Need training /orientation for
effectively accessing of INDEST E-Resources usage by faculty of top seven IITs with
different demographics like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer
literacy.
Hypothesis – XX
Ho: There is no significant difference between Need training /orientation for
effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources and different demographics (Name
of the IITs, Designation, Gender, Age, and computer literacy)
Ha: There is significant difference between Need training /orientation for effectively
accessing INDEST E-Resources and different demographics (Name of the IITs,
Designation, Gender, Age and computer literacy)
5.21.1 Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources
by Name of the IIT
Table 5.21.1 showed the cross tabulation between IIT’s and Need training
/orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No across IIT is higher
compared to Yes. IIT Kharagpur is 96% which is highest in this category and lowest is
IIT Roorkee which is 35%, however; in the category Yes, IIT Roorkee is 65% and
lowest is IIT Kharagpur with 4%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant
difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is
48.874 and sig value is .000 (< .05), hence difference are statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Need training /orientation for effectively accessing
of INDEST E-Resources by IIT’s of the respondents and all IIT’s have significant
association (Chi-Square= 48.874, df = 6 and Sig Value = 0.00)
293
Table 5.21.1 Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-
Resources by Name of the IIT
S/N
Need
training
/orientation
Name of the IIT
Total IITKGP IITB IITM IITK IITD IITG IITR
1 Yes 2 (4) 17 (18) 13 (15) 8 (23) 7 (21) 19 (28) 22 (65) 88 (22)
2 No 44 (96) 85 (82) 74 (85) 28 (77) 29 (79) 51 (72) 12 (35) 323 (78)
Total 46 (100) 102 (100) 87 (100) 36 (100) 36 (100) 70 (100) 34 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=48.874; df=6; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
Key: IITKGP= IIT Kharagpur, IITB= IIT Bombay, IITM= IIT Madras, IITK= IIT
Kanpur, IITD= IIT Delhi, IITG= IIT Guwahati, IITR= IIT Roorkee
5.21.2 Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources
by Designation
Table 5.21.2 showed the cross tabulation between Designation and Need
training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No across
Designation is higher compared to Yes. Associate Professor is 86% which is highest
in this category and lowest is Professor which is 75%, however; in the category Yes,
Professor is 25% and lowest is Associate Professor with 14%. The patterns clearly
indicates a significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is
employed, the chi square value is 5.344 and sig value is .07 (> .05), hence difference
are statistically not significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Need training /orientation for effectively accessing
of INDEST E-Resources by Designation of the respondents and all IITs have
significant association (Chi-Square= 5.344, df = 2 and Sig Value = 0.07)
Table 5.21.2 Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-
Resources by Designation
S/N Need training /orientation
Designation
Total Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
1 Yes 42 (25) 13 (14) 33 (24) 88 (22)
2 No 132 (75) 81 (86) 110 (76) 323 (78)
Total 174 (100) 94 (100) 143 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=5.344; df=2; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.07
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
294
5.21.3 Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources
by Gender
Table 5.21.3 showed the cross tabulation between Gender and Need training
/orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No across Designation is
higher compared to Yes. Female is 87% which is highest in this category and lowest is
Male which is 76%, however; in the category Yes, Male is 24% and lowest is Female
with 13%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant difference, in order to prove
this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is 3.810 and sig value is .05 (= .05),
hence difference is statistically significant at 5% level of significance.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Need training /orientation for effectively accessing
of INDEST E-Resources by Gender of the respondents and all IITs have significant
association (Chi-Square= 3.810, df = 1 and Sig Value = 0.05)
Table 5.21.3 Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-
Resources by Gender
S/N Need training /orientation Gender
Total Male Female
1 Yes 80 (24) 8 (13) 88 (22)
2 No 268 (76) 55 (87) 323 (78)
Total 348 (100) 63 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=3.810; df=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.05
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.21.4 Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources
by Age in Years
Table 15.23.4 showed the cross tabulation between Age and Need training
/orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No across Age is higher
compared to Yes. 46-55 age group is 90% which is highest in this category and lowest
is >56 age group which is 63%, however; in the category Yes, >56 years is 37% and
lowest is 46-55 age group with 10%. The patterns clearly indicates a significant
difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi square value is
16.905 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference is statistically significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates Need training /orientation for effectively accessing
of INDEST E-Resources by Age of the respondents and all IITs have significant
association (Chi-Square= 16.905, df = 3 and Sig Value = 0.00)
295
Table 5.21.4 Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-
Resources by Age in Years
S/N Need training
/orientation
Age in years Total
25-35 36-45 46-55 >56
1 Yes 17 (22) 36 (23) 9 (10) 26 (37) 88 (22)
2 No 64 (78) 129 (77) 84 (90) 46 (63) 323 (78)
Total 81 (100) 165 (100) 93 (100) 72 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=16.905; df=3; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
5.21.5 Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources
by Computer Literacy
Table 5.21.5 showed the cross tabulation between Computer Literacy and
Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No across
Computer Literacy is higher compared to Yes. ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy is 87%
which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Average’ Computer Literacy which is
45%, however; in the category Yes, ‘Average’ Computer Literacy is 55% and lowest
is ‘Expert’ Computer Literacy group with 13%. The patterns clearly indicates a
significant difference, in order to prove this, chi square is employed, the chi
square value is 23.829 and sig value is .00 (< .05), hence difference statistically
significant.
Chi Square: The χ2 test indicates need training /orientation for effectively accessing
of INDEST E-Resources by computer literacy to the respondents and all IITs have
significant association (Chi-Square= 23.829, df = 2 and Sig Value = 0.00)
Table 5.21.5 Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-
Resources by Computer Literacy
S/N Need training
/orientation
Computer Literacy Total
Expert Good Average
1 Yes 15 (13) 58 (23) 16 (55) 89 (22)
2 No 105 (87) 205 (77) 12 (45) 322 (78)
Total 120 (100) 263 (100) 28 (100) 411 (100)
Pearson Chi-Square=23.829; df=2; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=0.00
(Numbers in brackets indicate percentages)
296
5.21.6 Summary
This section deals with the (Chi-Square test) Need training /orientation for
effectively accessing of INDEST E-Resources usage by faculty of top seven IITs with
different demographics like Name of IITs; Designation; Gender; Age and Computer
literacy. Summary of the section 5.20 indicates that between IIT’s and Need training
/orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No across IIT is higher
compared to Yes. IIT-Kharagpur is 96% which is highest in this category and lowest
is IIT Roorkee which is 35%the chi square value is 48.874 and sig value is .000 (<
.05), hence difference are statistically significant (Table 5.20.1), between Designation
and Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No
across Designation is higher compared to Yes. Associate Professor is 86% which is
highest in this category and lowest is Professor which is 75% the chi square value is
5.344 and sig value is .07 (> .05), hence difference are statistically not significant
(Table 5.20.2), Gender and Need training /orientation for effectively accessing
INDEST E-Resources, No across Designation is higher compared to Yes. Female is
87% which is highest in this category and lowest is Male which is 76%the chi
square value is 3.810 and sig value is .05 (= .05), hence difference is statistically
significant at 5% level of significance (Table 5.20.3), Age and Need training
/orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-Resources, No across Age is higher
compared to Yes. 46-55 age group is 90% which is highest in this category and lowest
is >56 age group which is 63% the chi square value is 16.905 and sig value is .00 (<
.05), hence difference is statistically significant (Table 5.20.4), between Computer
Literacy and Need training /orientation for effectively accessing INDEST E-
Resources, No across Computer Literacy is higher compared to Yes. ‘Expert’
Computer Literacy is 87% which is highest in this category and lowest is ‘Average’
Computer Literacy which is 45% the chi square value is 23.829 and sig value is .00 (<
.05), hence difference statistically significant (Table 5.20.5).