A STUDY ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF ELDERLY WIDOWS

FREQUENCY TABLES - Socio Demographic Data

TABLE 1: Distribution of respondents according by their social status.

S. No. Social Status No. of Respondents Percentage

( n=60 )

Age

1. 60 - 65 27 45.0

2. 66 – 70 14 23.3

3. 71 – 75 8 13.3

4. 76 – 80 9 15.0

5. Above 81 2 3.3

Gender

1. Female 60 100.0

Marital Status

1. Widow 60 100.0

Educational Qualification

1. Primary 8 13.3
2. Middle 7 11.7
3. High school 6 10.0
4. Illiterate 39 65.0

It is noted from the above table that majority of the respondents (45%) are in the age group of 60
– 65 years. 23% of the respondents are in the age group 66 – 70 years and 15% of the
respondents are in the age group 76 – 80 years. 13.3% of the respondents are in the age group of
71 – 75 and very few respondents (3.3%) are above 81 years of age.
All the respondents (100%) are widows.
One third of the respondents (65%) are illiterate. 13% of the respondents are qualified up to the
primary level. 11.7% of the respondents are qualified up to middle school level. 10% of the
respondents have completed their high school.

TABLE 2: Distribution of respondents by their family status.

S. No. Family Status No. of Respondents Percentage

( n=60 )

1. Nuclear 50 83.3
2. Joint family 10 16.7
No. of years lived with spouse
1. 20 - 30 11 18.3
2. 31 - 40 33 55.0
3. 41 - 50 13 21.7
4. 51 - 60 3 5.0
No. of children
1. 1-2 33 55.0
2. 3-4 16 26.7
3. None 11 18.3
No. of Dependents
1. 1-3 38 63.3
2. 4-6 11 18.3
3. None 11 18.3

A majority of the respondents (83.3%) of the respondents live in nuclear families. A few of the
respondents (16.7%) live in joint families.

More than half of the respondents (55%) lived with their spouse for 31 – 40 years. 21.7% of the
respondents have lived with their spouse for 41 – 50 years. 18.3% of the respondents have lived
together for 20 – 30 years. Very few of the respondents (5%) have lived together for 51 – 60
years.
Majority of the respondents have (55%) have 1 – 2 children. 26.7% of the respondents have 3 – 4
children. And the remaining 18.3% don’t have children.

Most of the respondents (63.3%) have 1 - 3 dependents. 18.6% of the respondents have 4 – 6
dependents and 18.3% of the respondents have no dependents.

TABLE 3: Distribution of respondents by their living arrangements

No 12 20.0
From the above table, it is understood that more than half of the respondents (51.7%) hail from
rural areas and 48.3% of them hail from urban areas.

Regarding the type of house they live in, majority of the respondents (43.3%) live in tiled
houses, 41.7% of them live in thatched houses and 15% of the respondents live in concrete
houses.

Almost all the respondents (95%) have their own houses and the remaining 5% of the
respondents live in rented houses.

Most of the respondents (90%) don’t have toilet facilities in their houses. One third of the
respondents (63.3%) don’t have water facilities. However majority of the respondents (80%)
have electricity in their houses.

TABLE 4: Distribution of respondents by their economic status

S. No. Economic status No. of Respondents Percentage

( n=60 )

Occupation
1. Coolie 56 93.3
2. Agriculture 3 5.0
3. Not working 1 1.7

Present Employment status

1. Working 16 26.7
2. Not working 44 73.3

Monthly Income
1. 100 - 1000 45 75.0
2. 1001 - 2000 14 23.3
3. 2001 - 3000 1 1.7

Monthly Expenditure
1. 1000 - 2000 44 73.3
2.
 3. 2001 - 3000 12 20.0
4. 3001 - 4000 1 1.7
5. 4001 - 5000 2 3.3

Above 5000 1 1.7

From the above table it is understood that a vast majority of the respondents (93.3%) of the
respondents are coolies and a few of the respondents (5%) are employed in agriculture and 1.7%
of the respondents are not working.

It is evident from the table that nearly three fourths of the respondents (73.3%) are not working
and 26.7% of them are working at present.

Regarding their monthly income, majority of the respondents (75%) of the respondents earn less
than Rs.1000. 23.3% of the respondents earn between Rs.1000 to Rs.2000 and 1.7% of the
respondents earn between Rs.2000 to Rs.3000.

Regarding their monthly expenditure, majority of the respondents (73.3%) of the respondents
spend less than Rs.2000. 20% of the respondents spend between Rs.2000 to Rs.3000. 3.3%% of
the respondents spend between Rs.4000 to Rs.5000 and 1.7% of the respondents spend Rs.3000
to Rs.4000 and the remaining 1.7% of the respondents spend above Rs.5000 .
TABLE 4: Distribution of respondents by their economic status

S. No. Economic status No. of Respondents Percentage

( n=60 )

Monthly Savings
1. 50 8 13.3
2. 100 34 56.7
3. Below 500 18 30.0
Financial Problems
1. Yes 51 85.0
2. No 9 15.0

More than half of the respondents 56.7% save Rs.100 per month. 30% of the respondents save
below Rs.500 and 13.3% of the respondents save Rs.50

A vast majority of the respondents 85% have financial problems and 15% of the respondents
don’t have financial problems.

TABLE 5: Distribution of respondents by their Health Conditions

S. No. Health Conditions No. of Respondents Percentage

( n=60 )

Present Health condition

1. Worse 11 18.3
2. Better 44 73.3
3. Good 1 1.7
4. Very Good 4 6.7
Health problems
1. Hard of Hearing
Yes 31 51.7
No 29 48.3
2. Heart Disease
Yes 19 31.7
No 41 68.3
3. Stomach pain
Yes 34 56.7
No 26 43.3
4. Problem in vision
Yes 45 75.0
No 15 25.0
Duration of their illness
1. 6 months 23 38.3
2. 6 months - 1 year 20 33.3
3. 1.5 - 2 years 14 23.3
4. Above 2 years 3 5.0
Health problems
1. Difficulty in breathing 36 60.0
2. Burning of the heart 8 13.3
3. Tiredness 15 25.0
4. Joint pain 1 1.7

Psychological problems
1. Sleeplessness
Yes 29 48.3
No 31 51.7
2. Nightmares
Yes 11 18.3
No 49 81.7
 Worry about health
3. Yes 46 76.7
No 14 23.3
Memory loss
4. Yes 40 66.7
No 20 33.3
Worry about the future
5. Yes 43 71.7
No 17 28.3

From the above table it is understood that 73.3% of the respondents have better health.18.3% of
the respondents’ health condition is worse.6.7% of the respondents are in very good health and
the remaining 1.7% of the respondents are in good health.

From the above table we infer that 51.75% of the respondents have hearing problems.68.3% of
the respondents don’t have heart disease.56.7% of the respondents have stomach problems and
75% of the respondents have problems in vision.

Regarding the duration of their illness majority of their respondents 38.3% have suffered for six
months. 33.3% of respondents suffered from illness for a period of six months to one year.23.3%
of the respondents suffered from illness 1.5 years to 2 years and very few of the respondents 5%
suffered for more than 2 years.

Regarding other health problems majority of the respondents 60% have difficulty in breathing,
25% of the respondents have tiredness and 13.3% of the respondents suffer from burning of the
heart and 1.7% of the respondents have joint pain.

Regarding psychological problems more than half of the respondents 51.7% don’t suffer from
sleeplessness. 81.7% don’t have nightmares.Majority of the respondents 76.7% have worries
about their health. Two thirds of the respondents 66.7% suffer from memory loss and 71.7% are
worried about the future.
TABLE 6: Distribution of respondents by their Leisure time

S. No. Leisure time No. of Respondents Percentage

( n=60 )

Leisure time
1. Full day 40 66.7
2. Few hours 18 30.0
3. No free time 2 3.3
Leisure time
1. Household work
Yes 47 78.3
No 13 21.7
2. Gardening
Yes 31 51.7
No 29 48.3

3. Watching TV
Yes 45 75.0
No 15 25.0
4. Agriculture
Yes 3 5.0
No 57 95.0
5. Reading
Yes 0 0.0
No 60 100.0
6. Social Service
Yes 0 0.0
No 60 100.0
 7. Simply sitting and thinking
Yes 59 98.3
No 1 1.7

From the above table it is inferred that majority of the respondents 66.7% have leisure time the
whole day.30% of the respondents have a few hours of leisure time and 3.3% of them have no
free time.

Regarding how they spend their leisure time 78.3% of the respondents do house hold
work.51.7% do gardening, most of the respondents 75% watch television. A vast majority of
them 98.3% sit and think and 5% do agriculture. None of the respondents do reading or social
service.

TABLE 7: Distribution of respondents by their Religion Status

S. No. Religion Status No. of Respondents Percentage

( n=60 )

Opinion on Religion
1. It is important 1 1.7
2. No use 57 95.0
3. Not much important 2 3.3
Belief in a higher power
1. Yes 58 96.7
2. No 2 3.3
Belief in spirituality
1. Yes 56 93.3
2. No 4 6.7
Directed by spirituality
1. Yes 60 100.0
2. No 0 0.0
From the above table it is understood that almost all the respondents 95% believe that religion is
of no use and 3.3% of the respondents feel that it is not much important and 1.7% of them feel
that religion is important.

96.7% of the respondents believe in a higher power or force. 98.3% of them believe in god and
93.3% of them believe in spirituality.

WHOQOL

Dimension No. of respondents Percentage

General quality of life

Low 45 75.0
Moderate 14 23.3
High 1 1.7
Physical Domain
Low 16 26.7
Moderate 41 68.3
High 3 5.0
Psychological domain
Low 26 43.3
Moderate 32 53.3
High 2 3.3
Social relationship domain
Low 13 21.7
Moderate 34 56.7
High 13 21.7
Environmental domain
Low 24 40.0
Moderate 32 53.3
High 4 6.7
Overall Total
Low 28 46.7
Moderate 27 45.0
High 5 8.3

From the above table the distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of general
quality of life, three fourths of the respondents (75%) have a low level of quality of life. 23.3%
have a moderate level and 1.7% perceive a high level of general quality of life.

The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of physical domain, 26.6% of the
respondents have a low level 68.3% have a moderate level and only 5% of them have a high
level of physical domain.

The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of psychological domain, 43.3% of
the respondents have a low level 53.3% have a moderate level and only 3.3% of them have a
high level of physical domain.

The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of social relationship domain,
21.7% of the respondents have a low level 56.7% have a moderate level and only 21.7% of them
have a high level of social relationship domain.

The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of environmental domain, 40.0% of
the respondents have a low level 53.3% have a moderate level and only 6.7% of them have a
high level of environmental domain.

The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of overall activity, 46.7% of the
respondents have a low level 45% have a moderate level and only 8.3% of them have a high
level of overall activity.
ACTIVITY RATING SCALE

Dimension No. of respondents Percentage

Physical Activity
Low 12 20.0
Moderate 39 65.0
High 9 15.0
Psychological Activity
Low 16 26.7
Moderate 41 68.3
High 3 5.0
Social Activity
Low 5 8.3
Moderate 40 66.7
High 15 25.0
Overall Total
Low 17 28.3
Moderate 36 60.0
High 7 11.7

From the above table the distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of physical
domain, 20% of the respondents have a low level 65% have a moderate level and only 15% of
them have a high level of physical domain.

The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of psychological activity, 26.7% of
the respondents have a low level 68.3% have a moderate level and only 5% of them have a high
level of psychological activity.

The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of social activity, 8.3% of the
respondents have a low level 66.7% have a moderate level and 25% of them have a high level of
social activity.
The distribution of the respondents by their perceived levels of overall activity, 28.3% of the
respondents have a low level 60% have a moderate level and11% of them have a high level of
overall activity.

One Way Analysis of variance among Educational Qualification with the Various
dimensions of Quality of Life

Various
measures of
Quality of Life SS MS df X Statistical Inference

General quality
of life
G1=1.88 F=9.220
Between Groups G2=1.14
4.028 1.343 3 P<0.05
Within Groups G3=1.17
8.155 .146 56 G4=1.10 Significant

Physical Domain
G1=2.00 F=1.730
Between Groups G2=1.43
1.666 .555 3 P>0.05
Within Groups G3=1.83
17.984 .321 56 Not Significant
G4=1.59

Psychological
domain
3.705 1.235 3 G1=1.88 F=4.527
Between Groups
G2=1.29
Within Groups 15.278 .273 56 P<0.05
G3=2.00
G4=1.36 Significant

Social
relationship
domain G1=2.63
8.555 2.852 3 F=6.195
Between Groups G2=2.29
25.778 .460 56 G3=1.50 P<0.05
Within Groups
 G4=1.64 Significant

Environmental
domain G1=2.25
G2=1.00 F=7.138
Between Groups
6.408 2.136 3 G3=1.67 P<0.05
Within Groups G4=1.46
16.526 .295 56 Significant

Overall Total
F=9.529
Between Groups G1=2.38
8.443 2.814 3 P<0.05
Within Groups G2=1.14
16.540 .295 56 Significant
G3=1.83
G4=1.36

From the above table it is inferred that there is a significance difference between education
qualification and the dimensions of quality of life like General quality of life, Psychological
domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and the Overall except physical
domain.
 One Way Analysis of variance among Educational Qualification with the Various
dimensions of Activity Rating Scale

Various
measures of
Activity Rating SS MS df X Statistical Inference
Scale

Physical Activity

Between Groups .685 .228 3 G1=1.75 F=.634

G2=2.14
Within Groups 20.165 .360 56 P>0.05
G3=1.83
G4=1.97 Not Significant

Psychological
Activity
G1=1.63 F=.558
Between Groups G2=1.71
470 .157 3 P>0.05
Within Groups G3=1.67
15.714 .281 56 Not Significant
G4=1.85
.
Social Activity

Between Groups G1=2.25

.692 .231 3 F=.793
Within Groups G2=2.43
16.291 .291 56 P>0.05
G3=2.00
G4=2.15 Not Significant

Overall Total G1=1.63

F=.436
Between Groups G2=2.00
.552 .184 3 P>0.05
G3=1.83
Within Groups
23.631 .422 56 G4=1.77 Not Significant

From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between education
qualification and all the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Physical Activity,
Psychological Activity, Social Activity and the Overall.
 One Way Analysis of variance among Type of House with the various dimensions of
Quality of Life

Various
measures of
Quality of Life SS MS df X Statistical Inference

General quality
of life F=.029

Between Groups P>0.05

.012 .006 2 G1=1.20
Within Groups G2=1.23 Not Significant
12.171 .214 57
G3=1.22

Physical Domain
F=1.863
Between Groups
1.205 .603 2 P>0.05
G1=1.76
Within Groups Not Significant
18.445 .324 57 G2=1.65
G3=1.33

Psychological
domain
F=.032
Between Groups G1=1.48
.021 .011 2 G2=1.50 P>0.05
Within Groups
G3=1.44 Not Significant
18.962 .333 57

Social
relationship
domain
G1=1.92 F=.383
Between Groups G2=1.81
.455 .227 2 P>0.05
G3=1.67
Within Groups
 33.878 .594 57 Not Significant

Environmental
domain

Between Groups
G1=1.56
F=.064
Within Groups G2=1.50
.051 .026 2
P>0.05
G3=1.56
22.882 .401 57 Not Significant
Overall Total

Between Groups

Within Groups G1=1.52 F=.068

.060 .030 2
G2=1.54 P>0.05
24.924 .437 57 G3=1.44
Not Significant

From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Type of House
and all the dimensions of quality of life like General quality of life, Physical Domain,
Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and the Overall.
 One Way Analysis of variance among Type of House with the Various dimensions of
Activity Rating Scale

Various
measures of
Activity Rating SS MS df X Statistical Inference
Scale

Physical Activity

Between Groups .736 .368 2 G1=2.08 F=1.044

G2=1.85
Within Groups 20.114 .353 57 P>0.05
G3=1.89
Not Significant

Psychological
Activity
G1=1.88 F=.774
Between Groups
.428 .214 2 G2=1.73 P>0.05
Within Groups G3=1.67
15.755 .276 57 Not Significant

Social Activity
G1=2.16
Between Groups
.029 .015 2 G2=2.19 F=.049
Within Groups G3=2.22
16.954 .279 57 P>0.05

Not Significant

Overall Total
G1=1.88 F=.937
Between Groups G2=1.65
.770 .385 2 P>0.05
Within Groups G3=1.89
23.414 .411 57 Not Significant

From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Type of House
and all the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Physical Activity, Psychological Activity,
Social Activity and the Overall.
 One Way Analysis of variance among Religion with the Various dimensions of Quality of
Life

Various
measures of
Quality of Life SS MS df X Statistical Inference

General quality
of life
G1=2.00 F=5.390
Between Groups G2=1.18
1.938 .969 2 P<0.05
Within Groups G3=2.00
10.246 .180 57 Significant

Physical Domain
G1=2.00 F=.572
Between Groups
.387 .193 2 G2=1.63 P>0.05
Within Groups G3=2.00
19.263 .338 57 Not Significant

Psychological
domain G1=1.00

Between Groups .773 .386 2 G2=1.47 F=1.209

18.211 .319 57 G3=2.00 P>0.05

Within Groups
Not Significant

Social
relationship
domain
.956 .478 2 F=.816
Between Groups G1=1.00
33.377 .586 57 P>0.05
Within Groups G2=1.86
G3=1.50 Not Significant

Environmental
domain F=.881

Between Groups .688 .344 2 G1=2.00 P>0.05

Within Groups 22.246 .390 57 G2=1.51 Not Significant
G3=2.00

Overall Total F=.867

Between Groups .738 .369 2 G1=2.00 P>0.05

G2=1.49
Within Groups 24.246 .425 57 Not Significant
G3=2.00

From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Religion and
the dimensions of quality of life like Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship
domain, Environmental domain and the Overall except General quality of life.
 One Way Analysis of variance among Religion with the Various dimensions of Activity
Rating Scale

Various
measures of
Activity Rating SS MS df X Statistical Inference
Scale

Physical Activity

Between Groups 1.131 .565 2 G1=3.00 F=1.634

G2=1.93
Within Groups 19.719 .346 57 P>0.05
G3=2.00
Not Significant

Psychological
Activity
G1=2.00 F=2.123
Between Groups
1.122 .561 2 G2=1.75 P>0.05
Within Groups G3=2.50
15.061 .264 57 Not Significant

Social Activity

Between Groups
2.448 1.224 2 G1=1.00 F=4.800
Within Groups G2=2.23
14.535 .255 57 P<0.05
G3=1.50
Significant

Overall Total

Between Groups G1=2.00

.148 .074 2 F=.176
Within Groups G2=1.77
24.035 .422 57 P>0.05
G3=2.00
Not Significant

From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Religion and
the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Physical Activity, Psychological Activity and the
Overall except the Social Activity.
Inter Correlation Matrix between Various measures of Quality of Life

General Physical Psychological Social Environmenta Overa

quality of Domain domain relationship l domain ll
life domain Total

General 1
quality of
life

Physical .517** 1
Domain

Psychologic .663** .542** 1

al domain

Social .361** .206 .216 1

relationship
domain

Environme .624** .495** .578** .371** 1

ntal domain

Overall .813** .729** .817** .534** .852** 1

Total

** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

There is a significant relationship between the dimensions of Quality of life such as General
quality of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain,
Environmental domain and the Overall Quality of life.

Inter Correlation Matrix between Various measures of Activity Rating Scale

 Physical Psychological Social Activity Rating
Activity Activity Activity Scale Overall

Physical Activity 1

Psychological .453** 1
Activity

Social Activity .312* -.036 1

Activity Rating .858** .541** .685** 1

Scale Overall
Total

** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

There is a significant relationship between the dimensions of Physical activity, psychological

activity, social activity and overall activity.

‘t” between the Domicile of the Respondents and the Dimensions of Quality of Life

Variables Domicile Mean SD df Statistical

 Inference

General quality of life Rural 1.26 .445 58 t = .727

Urban 1.17 .468 P>0.05

Not Significant

Physical Domain Rural 1.61 .558 58 t = -.512

Urban .1.69 .604 P>0.05

Not Significant

Psychological Domain Rural 1.48 .508 58 t = -.008

Urban 1.48 .634 P>0.05

Not Significant

Social Relationship Rural 1.97 .706 58 t = 1.423

Domain
Urban 1.69 .806 P>0.05

Not Significant

Environmental Rural 1.58 .620 58 t = .604

Domain
Urban 1.48 .634 P>0.05

Not Significant

Overall Total Rural 1.55 .675 58 t = .388

Urban 1.48 .634 P>0.05

Not Significant

From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Domicile of
the respondents and the dimensions of quality of life like General quality of life, Physical
Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and the
Overall.

t” between the Domicile of the Respondents and the Dimensions of Activity Rating Scale

Variables Domicile Mean SD df Statistical

 Inference

Physical Activity Rural 2.06 .629 58 t = 1.561

Urban 1.83 .539 P>0.05

Not Significant

Psychological Activity Rural 1.84 .454 58 t =.845

Urban 1.72 .591 P>0.05

Not Significant

Social Activity Rural 2.32 .475 58 t = 2.141

Urban 2.03 .566 P<0.05

Significant

Activity Rating Scale Rural 1.90 .700 58 t = 1.516

Overall Total
Urban 1.66 .553 P>0.05

Not Significant

From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Domicile and
the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Physical Activity, Psychological Activity and the
Overall except the Social Activity.

‘t” between the Age of the Respondents and the Dimensions of Quality of Life

Variables Age Mean SD df Statistical

 Inference

General quality of life Below 70 1.24 .489 58 t = .679

Above 70 1.10 .375 P>0.05

Not Significant

Physical Domain Below 70 1.71 .559 58 t =1.133

Above 70 1.53 .612 P>0.05

Not Significant

Psychological Domain Below 70 1.51 .597 58 t =.576

Above 70 1.42 .507 P>0.05

Not Significant

Social Relationship Below 70 1.80 .782 58 t = -.421

Domain
Above 70 1.89 .737 P>0.05

Not Significant

Environmental Below 70 1.56 .673 58 t = .501

Domain
Above 70 1.47 .513 P>0.05

Not Significant

Overall Total Below 70 1.56 .709 58 t = .772

Above 70 1.42 .507 P>0.05

Not Significant

From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Age of the
respondents and the dimensions of quality of life like General quality of life, Physical Domain,
Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and the Overall.

‘t’ between the Age of the Respondents and the Dimensions of Activity Rating Scale

Variables Age Mean SD df Statistical

 Inference

Physical Activity Below 70 1.85 .573 58 t = -1.883

Above 70 2.16 .602 P>0.05

Not Significant

Psychological Activity Below 70 1.68 .567 58 t = -2.256

Above 70 2.00 .333 P<0.05

Significant

Social Activity Below 70 2.12 .510 58 t = -1.310

Above 70 2.32 .582 P>0.05

Not Significant

Activity Rating Scale Below 70 1.66 .617 58 t = -2.297

Overall Total
Above 70 2.05 .621 P<0.05

Significant

From the above table it is inferred that there is a significance difference between age of the
respondents and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Psychological activity and the
overall.

There is no significance difference between Age and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale
like Physical Activity and the Social Activity.

‘t’ between the Property of the Respondents and the Dimensions of Quality of Life

Variables Property Mean SD df Statistical

 Inference

General quality of life Rented 1.00 .000 58 t = -.845

Own 1.23 .464 P>0.05

Not Significant

Physical Domain Rented 1.33 .577 58 t = -.975

Own 1.67 .577 P>0.05

Not Significant

Psychological Domain Rented 1.67 .577 58 t = .571

Own 1.47 .570 P>0.05

Not Significant

Social Relationship Rented 1.33 .577 58 t = -1.168

Domain
Own 1.86 .766 P>0.05

Not Significant

Environmental Rented 1.33 .577 58 t = -.567

Domain
Own 1.54 .629 P>0.05

Not Significant

Overall Total Rented 1.67 .577 58 t = .407

Own 1.51 .658 P>0.05

Not Significant

From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Property of the
respondents and the dimensions of quality of life like General quality of life, Physical Domain,
Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and the Overall.

‘t’ between the Property of the Respondents and the Dimensions of Activity Rating Scale

Variables Property Mean SD df Statistical

 Inference

Physical Activity Rented 2.00 .000 58 t =.148

Own 1.95 .610 P>0.05

Not Significant

Psychological Activity Rented 1.67 .577 58 t = -.393

Own 1.79 .526 P>0.05

Not Significant

Social Activity Rented 2.00 .000 58 t = -.604

Own 2.19 .549 P>0.05

Not Significant

Activity Rating Scale Rented 1.67 .577 58 t = -.321

Overall Total
Own 1.79 .647 P>0.05

Not Significant

From the above table it is inferred that there is no significance difference between Property and
the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Physical Activity, Psychological Activity, Social
Activity and the Overall.

Association between the occupation of the respondents and the dimensions of Quality of
Life

Dimensions Coolie Agriculture Not Working df Statistical

 (n:56) (n:3) (n:1) Inference

General
quality of life X2= .747

Low P>0.05
45 2 1 4
Moderate Not Significant
10 1 0
High 1 0 0

Physical
X2= 1.127
Domain
P>0.05
Low 23 1 0
4 Not Significant
Moderate 30 2 1
High 3 0 0
X2= 1.092
Psychological
domain P>0.05
Low 30 2 1 4 Not Significant
Moderate 24 1 0
High 2 0 0

Social
relationship
domain X2= 1.878
21 1 1
Low 4 P>0.05
23 1 0
Moderate Not Significant
12 1 0
High

Environmental X2= 1.860

domain
P>0.05
30 1 1
Low
4 Not Significant
22 2 0
Moderate
4 0 0
High
X2= 2.207
Overall Total
Low 32 1 1 4 P>0.05

Moderate 19 2 0 Not Significant

High 5 0 0

From the above table it is inferred that there is no significant association between the Occupation
of the respondents and the dimensions of quality of life like General quality of life, Physical
Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and the
Overall.

Association between the occupation of the respondents and the dimensions of Activity
Rating Scale

Dimensions Coolie Agriculture Not Working df Statistical

 (n: ) (n: ) (n: ) Inference

Physical
Activity

Low 11 0 1 4 X2= 10.709

Moderate 38 1 0
P<0.05
High 7 2 0
Significant
Psychological
Activity

Low 4 X2=4.157
15 0 1
Moderate P>0.05
38 3 0
High Not Significant
3 0 0

Social
Activity

Low 3 1 0 4 X2=4.443
Moderate 39 1 1 P>0.05
High 14 1 0 Not Significant
Overall Total X2=4.332
Low 19 0 1
P>0.05
Moderate 31 2 0
Not Significant
6 1 0
High

From the above table it is inferred that there is a significant association between Occupation of
the respondents and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like physical activity and there is no
significant association between Occupation of the respondents and the other dimensions of
Activity Rating Scale like Psychological Activity, Social Activity and the Overall.

Association between the Health condition of the respondents and the dimensions of Quality
of Life

Dimensions Worse Better Good Very df Statistical

 (n:11 ) (n:44 ) (n: 1) Good Inference

(n:4 )

General
quality of life 6
Low 11 34 1 2
Moderate 0 9 0 2
High 0 1 0 0

Physical
Domain 6
Low 6 17 1 0
Moderate 5 24 0 4
High 0 3 0 0

Psychological
domain 6
Low 9 22 1 1
Moderate 2 20 0 3
High 0 2 0 0

Social
relationship
domain

Low
6 15 0 2 6
Moderate
4 19 1 0
High
1 10 0 2
Environmental
domain
6
Low
9 20 1 2
Moderate
2 21 0 1
High
Overall Total 0 3 0 1

Low

Moderate 6
9 22 1 2
High
2 18 0 1
0 4 0 1

From the above table it is inferred that there is no significant association between Health
condition of the respondents and the dimensions of quality of life like General quality of life,
Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and
the Overall.

Association between the Health condition of the respondents and the dimensions of Activity
Rating Scale

Dimensions Worse Better Good Very df Statistical

Good Inference
(n:11 ) (n:44 ) (n: 1)
(n:4 )

Physical
Activity

Low 1 10 0 1 6
Moderate 6 30 0 3
High 4 4 1 0

Psychological
Activity

Low 1 13 0 2 6
Moderate 9 29 1 2
High 1 2 0 0

Social
Activity
Low

Moderate 1 3 0 0 6

High 5 33 0 3
5 8 1 1
Overall Total

Low
2 16 0 2 6
Moderate
6 25 0 2
High
3 3 1 0

From the above table it is inferred that there is a significant association between the Health
condition of the respondents and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like physical activity
and overall.

There is no significant association between Health condition of the respondents and the other
dimensions of Activity Rating Scale like Psychological Activity and Social Activity

Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between age of the respondents and the
dimensions of Quality of Life

Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference

 General quality of life -.157 P>0.05
Not Significant
Physical Domain -.122 P>0.05
Not Significant
Psychological domain -.149 P>0.05
Not Significant
Social relationship domain -.004 P>0.05
Not Significant
Environmental domain -.209 P>0.05
Not Significant
Overall Total -.180 P>0.05
Not Significant

From the table it is understood that there is no significant relationship between the age of the
respondents and the various dimensions of quality of life such as General quality of life, Physical
Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and overall
quality of life.

Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between age of the respondents and the
dimensions of Activity Rating Scale

Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference

 Physical Activity .149 P>0.05
Not Significant
Psychological Activity .257 P<0.05
Significant
Social Activity .079 P>0.05
Not Significant
Overall Total .203 P>0.05
Not Significant

From the table we infer that as age increases, psychological activity too increases. There is no
significant relationship between the age of the respondents and the various dimensions of
physical activity, social activity and overall activity.

Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Monthly Expenditure of the

respondents and the dimensions of Quality of Life

Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference

 General quality of life -.030 P>0.05
Not Significant
Physical Domain -.018 P>0.05
Not Significant
Psychological domain -.018 P>0.05
Not Significant
Social relationship domain -.096 P>0.05
Not Significant
Environmental domain .023 P>0.05
Not Significant
Overall Total -.028 P>0.05
Not Significant

From the table it is understood that there is no significant relationship between the monthly
expenditure of the respondents and the various dimensions of quality of life such as General
quality of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain,
Environmental domain and overall quality of life.

Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Monthly Expenditure of the

respondents and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale

Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference

 Physical Activity .048 P>0.05
Not Significant
Psychological Activity -.097 P>0.05
Not Significant
Social Activity .197 P>0.05
Not Significant
Overall Total .099 P>0.05
Not Significant

There is no significant relationship between the monthly expenditure of the respondents and the
various dimensions of physical activity, psychological activity, social activity and overall
activity.

Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Number of Children of the

respondents and the dimensions of Quality of Life

Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference

 General quality of life -.010 P>0.05
Not Significant
Physical Domain .031 P>0.05
Not Significant
Psychological domain .000 P>0.05
Not Significant
Social relationship domain .021 P>0.05
Not Significant
Environmental domain -.003 P>0.05
Not Significant
Overall Total .010 P>0.05
Not Significant

From the table it is understood that there is no significant relationship between the number of
children of the respondents and the various dimensions of quality of life such as General quality
of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental
domain and overall quality of life.

Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Number of Children of the

respondents and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale

Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference

 Physical Activity -.218 P>0.05
Not Significant
Psychological Activity .066 P>0.05
Not Significant
Social Activity -.244 P>0.05
Not Significant
Overall Total -.228 P>0.05
Not Significant

There is no significant relationship between the number of children of the respondents and the
various dimensions of physical activity, psychological activity, social activity and overall
activity.

Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Family Size of the respondents and the
dimensions of Quality of Life

Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference

 General quality of life -.169 P>0.05
Not Significant

Physical Domain -.065 P>0.05

Not Significant
P>0.05
Psychological domain -.131
Not Significant
P>0.05
Social relationship domain -.125
Not Significant
P>0.05
Environmental domain -.118
Not Significant
P>0.05
Overall Total -.156 Not Significant

From the table it is understood that there is no significant relationship between the family size of
the respondents and the various dimensions of quality of life such as General quality of life,
Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental domain and
overall quality of life.

Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Family Size of the respondents and the
dimensions of Activity Rating Scale

Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference

Physical Activity -.142 P>0.05

 Not Significant
Psychological Activity .002 P>0.05
Not Significant
Social Activity -.217 P>0.05
Not Significant
Overall Total -.192 P>0.05
Not Significant

There is no significant relationship between the family size of the respondents and the various
dimensions of physical activity, psychological activity, social activity and overall activity.

Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Monthly Income of the respondents

and the dimensions of Quality of Life

Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference

General quality of life .041 P>0.05

 Not Significant
Physical Domain .035 P>0.05
Not Significant
Psychological domain -.020 P>0.05
Not Significant
Social relationship domain -.235 P>0.05
Not Significant
Environmental domain .052 P>0.05
Not Significant
Overall Total -.023 P>0.05
Not Significant

From the table it is understood that there is no significant relationship between the monthly
income of the respondents and the various dimensions of quality of life such as General quality
of life, Physical Domain, Psychological domain, Social relationship domain, Environmental
domain and overall quality of life.

Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correlation between Monthly Income of the respondents

and the dimensions of Activity Rating Scale

Dimensions Correlation Value Statistical Inference

Physical Activity .057 P>0.05

 Not Significant
Psychological Activity -.118 P>0.05
Not Significant
Social Activity -.084 P>0.05
Not Significant
Overall Total -.048 P>0.05
Not Significant

There is no significant relationship between the monthly income of the respondents and the
various dimensions of physical activity, psychological activity, social activity and overall
activity.