13 Chapter4

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Analysis and interpretation of data are another important step in any research study. It
plays an important and vital role in the research study. After collection of data, the
researcher has to analyse and interpret the data according to the purpose and nature of
the study.An analysis of data and interpretation of results or inferences are necessary to
draw a conclusion of the study.It is very essential for a scientific study. To determine
the inherent meaning or messages of the collected data, analysis techniques involves
data reduction including tabulation, use of various tests and techniques. Usually,
analysis of data deals with qualitative as well as quantitative characteristics of the
variables under study and it may be the numerical or verbal statement of relevant facts.
Here, statistics play an indispensable role as it is part and parcel of the research study.
Without which valid and reliable inferences cannot be drawn. So, the data whatever
collected by the investigator may not have any meaning until and unless if they are not
appropriately analysed and logically interpret. It represents the application of directive
and inductive logic to the research process. The final conclusion of the study depends
upon the analysis and interpretation of data process. The Analysis is not complete
without interpretation and interpretation cannot proceed without analysis. In fact, both
are the two sides of the same coin and interdependent with each other.
To explore the new facts or relationships, research data are generally analysed
and interpreted from different angles. So, in this process, the investigator has to be very
alert, flexible, and curious and open minded. Any kind of similarities or differences
must not unnoticed. Both descriptive and inferential statistics has been used in
150
thepresent study. Descriptive statistics is used to describe the status of the groups such
as frequency distribution, simple percentage, average or mean score and graphical
representation of the data such as column, histogram, bar diagram, pie diagram etc.
Inferential statistics both parametric (t-tests) and non-parametric (chi-square) tests has
been used to testing the hypotheses related to the research problem and to make
generalizations about the population on the basis of data analysis.Here responses
obtained from teachers and parents were analysed very carefully and vividly. In
conclusion, to establish the validity, reliability, and adequacy of data, the collected data
were systematically classified, tabulated, scientifically analyse, intelligently interpreted
and rationally concluded.
DATA ANALYSIS (Objective wise)
300 behavioural problems children from 20 randomly selected schools in
Kamrup Districts (both Metro and Rural) of Assam state constituted the sample of the
study. It is generally observed that behavioural problems among primary school
children are considered as detrimental to the family, society, peer group, neighbourhood
as well as self. An Environment such as home, school and peer group plays a vital role
in the development of behaviour problems among primary school children. To know the
different environmental causes associated with behavioural problem children,
identification of behavioural problem children is the first scientific step of this study.
Thus the investigator has formulated the following objective.
151
Objective 1-To identify the common behavioural problems of the primary school
children.
The difficulties in the identification of behaviour problem children are as difficult as the
classification of causes leading to the problem of behaviour in children. They emerge
from different aspects of behaviour as displayed at home, in school, in society, and in
the neighbourhood by the children. So, with the help of Vanderbilt ADHD diagnostic
teacher rating scale, the investigator has identified the behavioural problem children
from 20 selected primary schools of Kamrup districts (both Metro and Rural). Out of
total children available in the selected schools (class i-v), children having behavioural
problems are shown in table 4.1
Table 4.1. THE IDENTIFIED BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS CHILDREN
Total number of Children Identified Children Percent
4149 300 7.23
Identified behavioural problems children
7%
0% 0%
93%
Total no. of Children Identified Children
Figure 4.1. Showing the identified behavioural problem children
152
Interpretation
Table 4.1 reveals that there are total 4,149 children are found to be studying in selected
primary schools (class i-v) in Kamrup District (both Metro and Rural) of Assam. Out of
4,149 children, 300 children i.e. 7.23% are identified as children having behavioural
problems.
There are different types of behavioural problems are exist among the primary
school children. The prevalence of common behavioural problems of primary school
children is categorised as Inattention disorder, Hyperactivity disorder, Attention-Deficit
Hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Conduct or oppositional defiant disorder, Anxiety and
Depression disorder. To know the amount of strength and existence of different
behavioural problems, the investigator has categories the behavioural problem children
as- single(S), having only one problem, double (D), having more than one problem and
multiple (M), having more than two problems. In the table 4.2 prevalence of different
types of behavioural problems among primary school children are shown and in the
table 4.3the existence of different behavioural problems are shown.
Table 4.2 THE PREVALENCE OF COMMON BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS AMONG

PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN
Problems Frequencies Percent
Inattention 172 57.3
Hyper activity 124 41.3
ADHD 75 25
Conduct 119 39.7
Anxiety/Depression 134 44.7
153
Common behavioural prblems of primary school children
200
172
180
160
134
140 124 119
120
100
75
80
60
40
20
0
Inattention Hyper activity ADHD Conduct Anxiety/Depression
Frequencies
Figure 4.2 showing the common behavioural problems of primary school children
Interpretation
Table 4.2 reveals that out of 300 identified behavioural problem children 172 i.e. 57.3%
children have Inattention problem, 124 i.e. 41.3% children have Hyperactivity problem,
75 i.e. 255 children have ADHD problem, 119 i.e. 39.7% children have Conduct
disorder problem and 134 i.e. 44.7% children have Anxiety/Depression problem.
Table 4.3THE EXISTENCE OF BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS OF IDENTIFIED
PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN
Existence of behavioural problems No. of Children Percent
Double (D) 70 23.3
Multiple (M) 90 30
Single (S) 140 46.7
Total 300 100
154
The existence of behavioural problems
23%
47%
30%
Double Multiple single
Figure 4.3. The existence of behavioural problems of identified primary school children
Interpretation
Table 4.3 explain the existence of behavioural problems among primary school children
in three different categories such as single(S), double (D) and Multiple(M).From the
table 4.1.c it is clear that out of 300 identified behavioural problem children of primary
schools, 140 children i.e. 46.7% have single i.e. only one behavioural problem, 70
children i.e. 23.3% have double i.e. more than one behavioural problems and 90
children i.e. 30 % have multiple viz. more than two behavioural problems.
Background of the sample
It is generally felt that the expressed behavioural problems of the children are often the
symptoms of his unexpected mental tensions. The root of these problems may be
associated with many areas of life of the children. So the investigator prepared a
personal data blank as the socio-demographic profile to gather information related tothe
background of the sample. It is very much essential for an investigator to understand
properly the back ground of the sample and accordingly the investigator has formulated
155
objective 2 and objective 3. Therefore, first,the investigator has collected the
information related to some demographic variables such as age, gender, the number of
children in the family and birth order of the child among the siblings.
Objective 2- To find out the behavioural problems in relation to the variables –
a) Age
b) Gender
c) Number of children in the family
d) Birth order of the child among the siblings
Ho1- There is no significant difference in behavioural problems among the primary
school children on the basis of their demographic variables
a) Age
b) Gender
c) Number of children in the family
d) Birth order of the child among the siblings.
a)Age
Hence, the study is conducted on lower primary school children, so it is pre-decided that
the sample should fall in the age range of 6-12 years. Therefore, it is necessary to find
out the age wise distribution of the behavioural problem children. So, in the table, 4.4
behavioural problems of primary school children are shown according to their different
age group with their existence as Single, double and multiple.
156
Table 4.4 THE EXISTENCE OF BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS IN RELATION
TO AGE OF THE CHILDREN
Age group in Existence of behavioural problems Total Percent
years Double(D) Multiple(M) Single(S)
6-7 19(22.35% 26(30.59% 40(47.06%) 85 28.33
8-9 23(20.18%) 41(35.96% 50(43.86%) 114 38
10-11 17(25%) 16(23.53%) 35(51.47%) 68 22.67
12-above 11(33.33%) 7(21.215) 15(45.45%) 33 11
Total 70 90 140 300 100
Behavioural Problems in relation to age of the

children
11%
28%
23%
38%
6-7 8-9 10-11 12-above
Figure 4.4. Showing the behavioural problems of primary school children in
relation to different age group
157
Interpretation
Table 4.4 reveals that in the age group 6-7 years out of 300 identified behavioural
problem children 85 i.e. 28.33% children have behavioural problems among which 40
i.e. 47.06%children have the single behavioural problem, 19 i.e.22.35% children have
double behavioural problems and 26 i.e. 30.59% children have multiple behavioural
problems. In the age group 8-9 years 114 i.e. 38% children have behavioural problems
among which 50 i.e. 43.86% children have the single behavioural problem, 23 i.e.
20.18% children have double behavioural problems and 41 i.e. 35.96% children have
multiple behavioural problems. In the age group 10-11 years 68 children i.e. 22.67%
children have behavioural problems among which 35 i.e. 51.47% children have the
single behavioural problem, 17 i.e. 25% children have double behavioural problems and
16 i.e. 23.53% children have multiple behavioural problems. In the age group 12- above
33 children i.e. 11% have behavioural problems among which 15 i.e. 45.45% children
have the single behavioural problem, 11 i.e. 33.33% children have double behavioural
problems and 7 i.e. 21.21% children have multiple behavioural problems.
Thus the presence of existence of behavioural problems children at different age
level shows the different behavioural problems. To confirm the significance of this
difference Chi-Square test is applied. The result is shown in table 4.5
158
Table 4.5Showing the chi-square value of the existence of behavioural problems in
relation to the age of the children
Chi-Square Value df Asymp.Sig. (2-sided) Remark
Pearson Chi-Square 5.720a 6 0.455 Not significant
Likelihood Ratio 5.66 6 0.462
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 7.70.
The Chi-Square value calculated from the distribution is found to be 0.455 with df 6
which is not significant at .05 level. Thus it is implied that there is no relationship
between the existence of behavioural problems and age of children. Therefore, null
hypothesis accepted and it means age is not a determining factor of the existence of
behavioural problems of primary school children.
Table 4.6 THE COMMON BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS OF PRIMARY
SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO AGE OF THE
CHILDREN
Age Inattention % age Hyperactivity % age ADHD % age Conduct % age Anxiety/ % age
group depression
6-7 46 26.74 34 27.42 22 29.33 29 24.37 48 35.82
8-9 66 38.37 61 49.19 36 48 55 46.22 40 29.85
10-11 40 23.26 18 14.52 12 16 21 17.65 33 24.63
12-above 20 11.63 11 8.87 5 6.67 14 11.76 13 9.7
Total 172 100 124 100 75 100 119 100 134 100
159
Common behavioural problems in relation to age
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
06 to 07 08 to 09 10 to 11 12-above
Inattention Hyperactivity ADHD Conduct Anxiety/Depression
Figure 4.5 showing the percentage of common behavioural problems of primary

school children in relation to age of the children
Table 4.6 showed that out 172 inattention behavioural problem children, 46 children i.e.
26.74% have inattention behavioural problem in the age group 6-7 years. 66 i.e. 38.37%
children have inattention problem in the age group 8-9 years. In the age group 10-11
and 12-above years, 40(23.26%) and 20(11.63%) children have inattention behavioural
problem respectively. It is observed that in the age group 6-7 years,34children i.e.
27.42% have Hyperactivity behavioural problem. In the age group 8-9 years, 61 i.e.
49.19% children have Hyperactivity behavioural problem. But in the age group 10-11
years and 12- above years 18 (14.52%) and 11 (8.87%) children have Hyperactivity
behavioural problem respectively. It has been observed that in the age group 6-7 years
22 i.e. 29.33% children have Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD). 36 i.e.
48% children have ADHD problem in the age group 8-9 years. In the age group 10-11
years 12 i.e. 16% children have ADHD problem and in the age group 12-above 5 i.e.
6.67% children have ADHD problem.Out of 119 children having conduct disorder
problem, 29 i.e. 24.37 children are from 6-7 years of age group. 55 i.e. 46.22% children
are from age group 8-9 years. 21 i.e. 17.65% children are from 10-11 years of age group
160
and 14 i.e. 11.76% children are from age group 12-above years and in the age group 6-7
years 48 i.e. 35.82% of primary school children have Anxiety/Depression Disorder. 40
i.e. 29.85 %, 33 i.e. 24.63% and 13 i.e. 9.7% children have Anxiety/ Depression
Disorder problem in the age group 8-9, 10-11 and 12-above years respectively.
Thus the presence of common behaviour problems of primary school children at
different age level shows the different amount of behavioural problems. To confirm the
significance of these differences Chi-Square test is applied. The result is shown in table
4.7
Table 4.7 showing the Chi-Square value of common behavioural problems in
relation to age of the children
Problems Chi-Square df Asymp.Sig.(2- sided) Remark
Inattention .580 3 0.901 NS
Hyperactivity 14.097 3 0.003 S
ADHD 6.335 3 0.096 NS
Conduct 6.897 3 0.075 NS
Anxiety/Depression 9.806 3 0.02 S
NS-Not Significant S-Significant
Table 4.7 reveals that the obtained chi-Square value of 0.901 for inattention behavioural
problem with df 3 is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the null hypothesis is not
rejected and it can safely be concluded that there is no relation between inattention
behavioural problem and age of the children. The obtained chi-Square value of 0.003
for hyperactivity disorder with df 3 is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the null
hypothesis is rejected and it can safely be concluded that there is a relationship between
161
hyperactivity behavioural problem and age of the children.The chi-Square value for
ADHD is found as 0.096 with df 3 which is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the null
hypothesis is accepted and it can safely be concluded that there is no relationship
between ADHD behaviour problem and age of the children, though the children in
different age groups are showing different amount of ADHD problem.The Chi-Square
value for conduct disorder calculated from the distribution is found to be 0.075 with df
3 which is not significant at 0.05 level. Thus it is implies that there is no relationship
between conduct disorder and age of the children. Therefore, null hypothesis accepted
and it means age is not a determining factor of conduct disorder of primary school
children.The chi-square value for anxiety/depression disorder is obtained as 0.02 with df
3, which is significant at 0.05 level. Thus it is implies that there is a relationship
between the anxiety/ depression disorder and age of the children. Therefore null
hypothesis rejected and it means age is a determining factor of anxiety/ depression
disorder problem of primary school children.
b)Gender
As it is pre-decided that the sample should be comprised of both boys and girls.
Therefore, it is necessary to find out the gender wise distribution of behaviour problems
children. The table 4.8 shows the gender wise distribution of the behaviour problem
children along with its existence.
162
Table 4.8 THE EXISTENCE OF BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS OF PRIMARY
SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO GENDER OF THE
CHILDREN
Gender Existence of behavioural Problems Total Percent
D Percent M Percent S Percent
Boys 50 23.81 67 31.91 93 44.28 210 70%
Girls 20 22.22 23 25.55 47 52.22 90 30%
Total 70 90 140 300 100
*S- Single *D-Double *M-Multiple
The existence of behavioural problems in

relation to gender
100
80
60
40
20
0
single Double Multiple
Problem
Boy Girl
Figure 4.6. Showing the existence behavioural problems in relation to gender of the
children
163
Interpretation
It has been observed from the table 4.8 that out of 300 identified behaviour problem
children 210 i.e. 70% children are boys and 90 i.e. 30% are girls. Among the boys 93
i.e. 44.28%boys have the single problem, 50 i.e.23.81% boys have double problems and
67 i.e.31.91% boys have multiple problems. On the other hand, among the girls 47 i.e.
52.22% girls have the single problem, 20 i.e. 22.22% girls have double problems and 23
i.e. 25.55% girls have multiple behaviour problems.
Thus the presence of existence of behaviour problems in relation to gender shows
different amount of behavioural problems among boys and girls of primary school
children. To confirm the significance of this difference, Chi-Square test is applied. The
result is shown in table 4.9
Table 4.9 Showing the Chi-Square value of existence of behavioural problems in
relation to gender of the children
Chi-Square Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Remark
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
In the table 4.9 it is observed that the calculated Chi-Square value is found to be 0.414
with df 2 which is not significant at 0.05 level. Thus the null hypothesis accepted and it
is implied that there is no relationship between the behaviour problems and gender of
the children. So, it can be safely be concluded that gender is not a determining factor of
behaviour problems among the primary school children.
164
SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO GENDER OF THE
CHILDREN
Gender Inattention % Hyperactivity % ADHD % Conduct % Anxiety/ %

age age age age depression age
Boy 115 66.86 98 79.03 55 73.33 90 75.63 85 63.43
Girl 57 33.14 26 20.97 20 26.67 29 24.37 49 36.57
Total 172 100 124 100 75 100 119 100 134 100
Common behavioural problems in relation to gender of the

children
100
80
60
40
20
0
Inattention Hyperactivity ADHD Conduct Anxiety/
Boy Girl
Figure 4.7 showing the percentage of common behavioural problems of primary

school children in relation to gender of the children
From the table 4.10 it has been observed that out 172 Inattention behavioural problem
children, 115 i.e. 66.86% children are boys and 57 i.e.33.14% children are girls. Out of
124 hyperactivity behavioural problem children, 98 i.e. 79.03% children are boys and
26 i.e. 20.97% children are girls. Out of 124 hyperactivity behavioural problem
children, 98 i.e. 79.03% children are boys and 26 i.e. 20.97% children are girls.. It has
also been observed that out of 75 ADHD behavioural problem children, 55 i.e. 73.33%
children are boys and 20 i.e. 26.67% children are girls.On the other hand, out of 119
165
conduct behavioural problem children, 90 i.e. 75.63% children are boys and 29 i.e.
24.37% children are girls and out of 134 anxiety/depression disorder behavioural
problem children 85 i.e. 63.43% children are boys and 49 i.e. 36.57% children are girls.
Thus the presence of inattention, hyperactivity, ADHD, conduct, anxiety/depression
disorder behavioural problems in relation to gender shows different amount of
behavioural problems among boys and girls of primary school children. To confirm the
significance of these differences, Chi-Square test is applied. The result is shown in table
4.11
Table 4.11 Showing the Chi-Square value of common behavioural problems in
relation to gender of the children

Inattention 1.892 1 0.169 NS
Hyperactivity 8.211 1 0.004 S
ADHD .529 1 0.467 NS
Conduct 2.977 1 0.084 NS
Anxiety/Depression 4.973 1 0.026 S
Table 4.11 shows that the Chi-Square value for inattention behavioural problem
calculated from the distribution is found to be 0.169 with the df 1 which is not
significant at 0.05 level. Thus it is implied that there is no relationship between the
inattention behaviour problem and gender of the children. Therefore, null hypothesis
accepted and it means gender is not a determining factor of inattention behaviour
problem. Chi-Square value for hyperactivity behavioural problem calculated from the
distribution is found to be 0.169 with the df 1 which is highly significant at 0.01 level.
Thus it is implied that there is a relationship between the hyperactivity behavioural
problem and gender of the children. Therefore, null hypothesis rejected and it means
166
gender is considered as a determining factor of hyperactivity behavioural problem
among primary school children.The Chi-Square value for ADHD behavioural problem
calculated from the distribution is found to be 0.467 with df 1 which is not significant at
0.05 level. Thus it is implied that there is no relationship between the ADHD
behavioural problem and gender of the children. Therefore, null hypothesis accepted
and it means gender is not determining factor of ADHD behavioural problem.The Chi-
Square value for the conduct disorder calculated from the distribution is found to be
0.084 with the df 1 which is not significant at 0.05 level. Thus it is implied that there is
no relationship between the conduct behavioural problem and gender of the children.
Therefore, null hypothesis accepted and it means gender is not determining factor of
conduct behavioural problem and the Chi-Square value for anxiety/depression disorder
calculated from the distribution is found to be 0.026 with the df 1 which is highly
significant at 0.05 level. Thus it is implied that there is a relationship between
Anxiety/Depression disorder behaviour problem and gender of the children. Therefore,
null hypothesis rejected and it may safely be concluded that gender plays an important
role as a determining factor of Anxiety/ Depression behaviour problem among primary
school children.
C) Number of children in the family
It is common known fact that in different types of family, the member as well as the
number of children also different. So it is necessary to find out the behavioural
problems of number of children in the family. Considering that fact the table 4.12 shows
the behavioural problems of primary school children along with the existence of
behavioural problems in relation to the number of children in the family.
167
Table 4.12 THE EXISTENCE OFBEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS OF PRIMARY
SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO NUMBER OF
CHILDREN IN THE FAMILY
No of Children D percent M percent S percent Total percent
1 19 27.14 27 30.00 49 35 95 31.67
2 40 57.14 50 55.56 64 45.71 154 51.33
3 10 14.29 12 13.33 20 14.29 42 14
4 1 1.43 0 0 5 3.57 6 2
5 0 0 1 1.11 2 1.43 3 1
Total 70 100 90 100 140 100 300 100
*S-single *D-double *M- multiple
E X I S T E N C E O F B E H A V IO U R A L PR O B L E MS
I N R E L A T I O N T O N U MB E R O F C H I L D R E N I N
T H E FA MI L Y
Problem Problem Problem
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 4.8 showing the existence of behavioural problems in relation to number of
children in the family
168
Interpretation
Table 4.12 reveals that out of 300 identified behavioural problem children’s family 95
i.e.31.67% family have only one child out of which 49 i.e. 35% children have single (S)
viz. only one behavioural problem, 19 i.e. 27.14% children have double (D) viz. more
than one behavioural problems and 27 i.e. 30% children have multiple (M) viz. more
than two behavioural problems. On the other hand 154 i.e. 51.33% family have two
children among which 64 i.e. 45.71% children have Single behavioural problem, 40
i.e.57.14% children have D behavioural problems and 50 i.e.55.56% children have M
behavioural problems. 42 i.e. 14% family have three children among which 20
i.e.14.29% children have single behavioural problem, 10 i.e.14.29% children have
double behavioural problems and 12 i.e.13.33% children have multiple behavioural
problems. 6 i.e. only 2% family have four children among which 5 i.e. 3.57% children
have single behavioural problem and only 1 i.e. 1.43% children have double
behavioural problems and 3 i.e. only 1% family have five children among which 2 i.e.
1.43% children have single behavioural problem and only 1 i.e. 1.11% children have
multiple behavioural problems.
Thus the presence of behavioural problems in relation to number of children in the
family shows different amount of behavioural problems along with its existence among
the primary school children. To confirm the significance of this difference, Chi-Square
test is applied. The result is shown in table 4.13
169
Table 4.13 Showing the Chi-Square value of existence of behavioural problems of
the children in relation to number of children in the family
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Remark
a. 6 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .70.
From the table 4.13it has been observed that computed Chi-Square value is 0.504 with
df 8. Which is not significant at 0.05 level. Thus null hypothesis accepted means there is
no any relation between behavioural problems and number of children in the family and
it means number of children in the family is not a determining factor of behavioural
problem among primary school children. Moreover, the family having 2 children are
more prone to have behavioural problems.
Table 4.14 THE INATTENTIONBEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF PRIMARY
No of Children Inattention Percent
1 53 30.82
2 85 49.42
3 29 16.86
4 3 1.74
5 2 1.16
Total 172 100
170
Inattention behavioural problem
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 4.9 showing the inattention behavioural problem in relation to number of
the children in the family
Interpretation
From the table 4.14 it has been observed that the family where number of children is
only one, there are53 i.e. 30.82% children have inattention problem. Where the number
of children in the family is two, there are 85 i.e. 49.42% children have inattention
problem. The family where the number of children is three, there are 29 i.e. 16.86%
children have inattention problem. Where the number of the children in the family is
four, there are only 3 i.e. 1.74% children have inattention problem and the family where
the number of children is five, there are only 2 i.e. 1.16% children have inattention
problem.
Thus the presence of inattention behavioural problem in relation to number of
children in the family observed different amount of behavioural problems. To confirm
the significance of this difference, Chi-Square test is applied. The result is shown in
table 4.15
171
Table 4.15 Showing the Chi-Square value of the Inattention behavioural problem
of the children in relation to the number of the children in the
family
a. 4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
The Chi-Square value calculated from the distribution is found to be 0.562 with df 4
which is not significant. This is implied that there is no relationship between the
inattention behavioural problem and number of children in the family. Therefore, null
hypothesis accepted and it means number of children in the family is not determining
factor of inattention behavioural problem among primary school children.
Table 4.16 THE HYPERACTIVITYBEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF PRIMARY

No of Children Hyperactivity Percent
1 39 31.45
2 70 56.45
3 13 10.48
4 1 0.81
5 1 0.81
Total 124 100
172
Hyperactivity behavioural problem
80
70
70
60
50
40
30 39
20
10
13 1 1
0
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 4.10 showing the hyperactivity behavioural problem in relation to number
of children in the family
Interpretation
only one, there is 39 i.e. 31.45% children have hyperactivity problem. Where the
number of children in the family is two, there are 70 i.e. 56.45% children have
hyperactivity problem. The family where the number of children is three, there are 13
i.e. 10.48% children have hyperactivity problem. Where the number of the children in
the family is four, there is only 1 i.e. 0.81% children have hyperactivity problem and the
family where the number of children is five, there is also only 1 i.e. 0.81% children
have hyperactivity problem.
Thus the presence of hyperactivity behavioural problem in relation to number of
children in the family shows different amount of behavioural problems. To confirm the
significance of this difference, Chi-Square test is applied. The result is shown in table
4.17
173
Table 4.17 Showing the Chi-Square value of the Hyperactivity behavioural
problem of the children in relation to number of the children in the
family
minimum expected count is 1.24.
Table 4.17 reveals that the obtained Chi-Square value 0.339 for df 4 is not significant at
0.05 level. Hence, the null hypothesis is not rejected and it can safely be concluded that
there is no significant difference between hyperactivity behavioural problem and
number of children in the family. More specifically it is observed that the family having
two children have more hyperactivity problem.
Table 4.18 THE ADHD BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF PRIMARY SCHOOL
CHILDREN IN RELATION TO NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN
THE FAMILY
No of children ADHD Percent
1 24 32
2 40 53.33
3 10 13.33
4 0 0
5 1 1.34
Total 75 100
174
ADHD behavioural Problem
45 40
40
35
30
24
25
20
15 10
10
5 0 1
0
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 4.11 showing the ADHD behavioural problem in relation to the number of
Interpretation
only one 24 i.e. 32% children have ADHD problem. Where the number of children in
the family is two, 40 i.e. 53.33% children have ADHD problem. The family where the
number of children is three, 10 i.e. 13.33% children have ADHD problem. Where the
number of the children in the family is four, no one have ADHD problem and the family
where the number of children is five there is only 1 i.e. 1.34% children have
ADHDproblem.
Thus the ADHD behavioural problem in relation to number of children in the family
shows different amount of behavioural problems. To confirm the significance of this
difference, Chi-Square test is applied. The result is shown in table 4.19
175
Table 4.19 Showing the Chi-Square value of the ADHD behavioural problem of the
children in relation to the number of the children in the family
From the table is has been observed that the Chi-Square value with df 4 is 0.695 which
is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence the null hypothesis accepted viz. there is no
significant relationship between hyperactive behavioural problem and number of
children in the family. It means number of children in the family is not a determining
factor of ADHD behavioural problem.
Table 4.20 THE CONDUCTBEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF PRIMARY
No of children Conduct Percent
1 32 26.89
2 73 61.34
3 13 10.93
4 0 0
5 1 0.84
Total 119 100
176
Conduct disorder
80 73
60
40 32
20 13
0 1
0
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 4.12 showing the conduct behavioural problem in relation to number of
Interpretation
only one 32 i.e. 26.89% children have conduct disorder problem. Where the number of
children in the family is two, 73 i.e. 61.34% children have conduct disorder problem.
The family where the number of children is three, 13 i.e. 10.93% children have conduct
disorder problem. Where the number of the children in the family is 4 there is not a
single children have conduct disorder problem and the family where the number of
children is 5 there is only 1 i.e. 0.84% children have conduct disorder problem.
Thus the presence of conduct disorder behavioural problem in relation to
number of children in the family shows different amount of behavioural problems. To
confirm the significance of this difference, Chi-Square test is applied. The result is
shown in table 4.21
177
Table 4.21 Showing the Chi-Square value of the Conduct Disorder behavioural
problem of the children in relation to the number of children in the
family
Pearson Chi-Square 10.599a 4 0.031 Significant
Table 4.21 shows that the Chi-Square value calculated from the distribution is found to
be 0.031 with df 4 which is significant at 0.05 level. Hence null hypothesis rejected and
it implies that there is a significant relationship between conduct disorder problem and
number of children in the family. It means number of children in the family is
considered as a determining factor of conduct disorder problem among primary school
children.
Table 4.22 THE ANXIETY/DEPRESSION BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF PRIMARY

SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO NUMBER OF CHILDREN
IN THE FAMILY
No of children Anxiety/Depression Percent
1 39 29.1
2 68 50.75
3 22 16.42
4 3 2.24
5 2 1.49
Total 134 100
178
Anxiety/Depression disorder
80
68
70
60
50
39
40
30 22
20
10 3 2
0
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 4.13 showing the anxiety/depression behavioural problem in relation to the
number of children in the family
Interpretation
Table 4.22 it reveals that the family where number of children is only one 39 i.e. 29.1%
children have anxiety/depression disorder problem. Where the number of children in the
family is two, there is 68 i.e. 50.75% children have anxiety/depression problem. The
family where the number of children is three, there is 22 i.e. 16.42% children have
anxiety/depression problem. Where the number of the children in the family is 4 there is
only 3 i.e. 2.24% children have anxiety/depression problem and the family where the
number of children is 5 there is only 2 i.e. 1.49% children have anxiety/depression
disorder problem.
Thus the presence of Anxiety/Depression behaviouralproblem in relation to
number of children in the family shows different amount of Anxiety/Depression
behavioural problem among the primary school children. To confirm the significance of
this difference, Chi-Square test is applied. The result is shown in table 4.23
179
Table 4.23 Showing the Chi-Square value of the Anxiety/ Depression disorder of
the children in relation to number of children in the family
From the table 4.23 it has been observed that the computed Chi-Square value for df 4 is
found 0.702 which is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence null hypothesis is accepted and
it implied that there is no relationship between number of children in the family and
Anxiety/Depression behaviour problem among primary school children. Thus it means
number of children in the family is not a determining factor of Anxiety/Depression
disorder.
d) Birth order of the children among the siblings
As it is mentioned above that the number of children in the different family is different
likewise the ordinal position or birth order of the children among the siblings are also be
different in the different family. To find out the causes of the behavioural problem
children, birth order of the children among siblings are also considered as very
important. Therefore, the investigator has kept the fact in mind, in table 4.24 it shows
the behaviour problems in relation to the birth order of the children among the siblings
along with its existence.
180
SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO THE BIRTH ORDER OF
THE CHILDREN AMONG THE SIBLINGS
Birth order of the child
Existence of
Problem Eldest Percent Middle Percent Youngest Percent Total
Single 87 45.31 3 37.5 50 50 140
Double 45 23.44 2 25 23 23 70
Multiple 60 31.25 3 37.5 27 27 90
Total 192 100 8 100 100 100 300
Percent 64 2.67 33.33 100
Existence of behavioural problems in relation

to birth order of the children
100 87
80 60
60 45
40
20
0
Single Double Multiple
Birth order of the child Birth order of the child

Birth order of the child
Figure 4.22 showing the existence behavioural problems in relation to the birth order of
the children among the siblings
Interpretation
It has been observed from the table 4.24 that out of 300 identified behavioural problems
children 192 i.e. 64% children are eldest or first born children among which 87 i.e.
181
45.31% children have single viz. only one problem, 45 i.e. 23.44% children have double
viz. more than one problem and 60 i.e. 31.25% children have multiple viz. more than
two problems. 8 i.e. 2.67% children are middle born children in the family among
which 3 i.e. 37.5% children have single viz. only one problem, 2 i.e. 25% children have
double viz. more than one problem and 3 i.e. 37.5%children have multiple viz. more
than two problems and 100 i.e. 33.33% children are youngest in the family, among
which 50 i.e. 50 % children have single problem, 23 i.e. 23 % children have double
problems and 27 i.e. 27% children have multiple problems.
Thus the presence of behavioural problems in relation to birth order of children among
the siblings shows different amount of behavioural problems among the primary school
Table 4.25 Showing the Chi-Square value of existence behavioural problems in
relation to birth order of the children among the siblings
182
it implies that there is no relationship between birth order of children among the siblings
and behavioural problems of primary school children. Thus it means birth order of
children among the siblings is not a determining factor of behavioural problems of
primary school children.

SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO THE BIRTH ORDER
OF THE CHILDREN AMONG THE SIBLINGS
Birth order of the child among the siblings Total

Problems Eldest Percent Middle Percent Youngest Percent
Inattention 111 64.53 5 2.91 56 32.56 172
Hyperactivity 79 63.71 3 2.42 42 33.87 124
ADHD 48 64 3 4 24 32 75
Conduct 76 63.87 3 2.52 40 33.61 119
Anxiety/depression 86 64.18 8 5.97 40 29.85 134
Common behavioural problems in relation to the birth

order of the children among the siblings
80
60
40
20
0
Eldest Middle Youngest
Figure 4.15 showing the percentage of common behavioural problems of primary school
children in relation to birth order of the children among the siblings
183
Table 4.26 reveals that out of 172 children having inattention problem 111 i.e. 64.53%
children are eldest or first born in the family. 5 i.e. 2.91% children are middle born and
56 i.e. 32.56% children are youngest in the family.Out of 124 children having
Hyperactive behavioural problem 79 i.e. 63.71% children are eldest or first born in the
family. 3 i.e. 2.42% children are middle born and 42 i.e. 33.87% children are youngest
in the family.Out of 75 children having ADHD problem 48 i.e. 64% children are eldest
or first born in the family. 3 i.e. 4% children are middle born and 24 i.e. 32% children
are youngest in the family.Out of 119 children having conduct disorder problem 76 i.e.
63.87% children are eldest or first born in the family.3 i.e. 2.52% children are middle
born and 40 i.e. 33.61% children are youngest in the family and out of 134 children
having anxiety/depression problem 86 i.e. 64.18% children are eldest or first born in the
family. 8 i.e. 5.97% children are middle born and 56 i.e. 29.85% children are youngest
in the family.
Thus the presence of common behavioural problems in relation to birth order of
children among the siblings shows different amount of behavioural problems among the
primary school children. To confirm the significance of these difference, Chi-Square
tests are applied. The result is shown in table 4.27
Table 4.27 showing the Chi-Square values of common behavioural problems in
relation to the birth order of the children among the siblings

Inattention .178 2 0.915 NS
Hyperactivity .070 2 0.966 NS
ADHD .720 2 0.698 NS
Conduct .021 2 0.99 NS
Anxiety/depression 10.793 2 0.005 S
NS- Not significant S-Significant
184
From the table 4.27 it has been observed that the computed Chi-Square value for
inattention behavioural problem with df 2 is found 0.915 which is not significant at 0.05
level. Hence null hypothesis is accepted and it is implied that there is no relationship
between birth order of children among the siblings and inattention behavioural problem
among primary school children. Thus it means birth order of children among the
siblings is not a determining factor of inattention behavioural problem of primary
school children.The computed Chi-Square value for hyperactivity disorder with df 2 is
it implies that there is no relationship between the birth order of children among the
siblings and Hyperactivity behavioural problem among primary school children. Thus it
means the birth order of children among the siblings is not a determining factor of
hyperactivity behavioural problem of primary school children. The computed Chi-
Square value for ADHD with df 2 is found 0.698 which is not significant at 0.05 level.
Hence null hypothesis is accepted and it is implied that there is no relationship between
birth order of children among the siblings and ADHD behavioural problem among
primary school children. Thus it means birth order of children among the siblings is not
a determining factor of ADHD behavioural problem of primary school children. The
computed Chi-Square value for conduct disorder with df 2 is found 0.99 which is not
significant at 0.05 level. Hence null hypothesis is accepted and it implied that there is no
relationship between the birth order of children among the siblings and conduct
behavioural problem among primary school children. Thus it means birth order of
children among the siblings is not a determining factor of conduct behavioural problem
of primary school children and the computed Chi-Square value for anxiety/depression
disorder with df 2 is found 0.005 which is significant at 0.01 level. Hence null
185
hypothesis is rejected and it is implied that there is a relationship between birth order of
children among the siblings and anxiety/depression behavioural problem among
primary school children. Thus it means birth order of children among the siblings is a
determining factor of anxiety/depression behavioural problem of primary school
children.
The family is a social institution which provides emotional security to the
children and plays an important role in the development of behaviour of the children.
The type, nature, size of the family, educational qualification, occupation and monthly
income of the family have been observed to be related to various behavioural problems
of the children. Therefore, the understanding of the behaviour of the children is
meaningless or incomplete without an analysis of the dynamics of these family forces.
So the investigator has formulated the following objectives considering to the some
selected socio-demographic variables.
Objective 3- To find out the behavioural problems in relation to the variables –
a) Type of family
b) Nature of family
c) Size of family
d) Educational qualification of the parents
e) Occupation of the parents
f) Monthly income of the parents
Ho2-There is no significant difference in behavioural problems among the primary
school children on the basis of their family related variables
186
a) Type of family
b) Nature of family
c) Size of family
d) Educational qualification of the parents
e) Occupation of the parents
f) Monthly income of the parents
a)Type of family
Table 4.28 EXISTENCE OFBEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS OF PRIMARY
SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO TYPE OF FAMILY
Existence of Type of family Total

behavioural problems
BP Percent FAB percent MAB percent
122 46.56 12 46.15 6 50 140
Single
60 22.91 9 34.62 1 8.33 70
Double
80 30.53 5 19.23 5 41.67 90
Multiple
262 100 26 100 12 100 300

Total
87.33 8.67 4 100
percent
*BP- Both parents present *FAB-Father absent *MAB- Mother absent
187
Behavioural problems in relation to type of family
140
120
122
100
80
80
60
60
40
20
12 6 9 1 5 5
0
Type of family Type of family Type of family
Figure 4.16 showing the existence behavioural problems of primary school
children in relation to type of family
Interpretation
From the table 4.28 it has been observed that out of total 300 identified behavioural
problem children’s family 262 i.e. 87.33% children are coming from both parents
present family among which 122 i.e. 46.56% children have single i.e. only one
behavioural problem, 60 i.e. 22.91 children have double viz. more than two problems
and 80 i.e. 30.53% children have multiple viz. more than two problems. 26 i.e. 8.67
children are coming from father absent family among which 12. i.e. 46.15% children
have single problem, 9 i.e. 34.62% children have double problems and 5 i.e. 19.23%
children have multiple problems and 12 i.e. 4 % children are coming from mother
absent family among which 6 i.e. 50% have single problem, 1 i.e. 8.33% children have
double problems and 5 i.e. 41.67% children have multiple problems.
188
Thus the presence of existence of behavioural problems in relation to type of
family shows different amount of behavioural problems among the primary school
Table 4.29 Showing the Chi-Square value of existence of behavioural problems of
primary school children in relation to type of family
it is implied that there is no relationship between type of family and existence of
behavioural problems of primary school children. Thus it means type of family is not
determining factor of existence of behavioural problems of primary school children.
SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO TYPE OF FAMILY
Type of family
Problem BP Percent FAB Percent MAB Percent Total
Inattention 153 58.4 11 42.31 8 66.67 172
Hyperactivity 111 42.37 8 30.77 5 41.67 124

ADHD 68 25.95 3 11.54 4 33.33 75
Conduct 105 40.08 10 38.46 4 44 119
Anxiety/depression 114 43.51 13 50 7 58.33 134
189
Common behavioural problems in relation to type of
family
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Type of family Type of family Type of family
Figure 4.17 showing the percentage of common behavioural problems in relation

to type of family
From the table 4.30 it has been observed that out of 262 children having behavioural
problem coming from both present family 153 i.e. 58.4% children have inattention
behavioural problem, out of 26 children coming from father absent family 11 i.e.
42.31% have inattention problem and out of 12 children coming from mother absent
family 8 i.e.66.67% children have inattention behavioural problem.Out of 262 children
having behavioural problem coming from both present family 111 i.e. 42.37% children
have hyperactivity behavioural problem, out of 26 children coming from father absent
family 8 i.e. 30.71% have hyperactivity problem and out of 12 children coming from
mother absent family 5 i.e.41.67% children have hyperactivity behavioural problem.Out
of 262 children having behavioural problem coming from both present family 68 i.e.
25.95% children have ADHD behavioural problem, out of 26 children coming from
father absent family 3 i.e. 11.54% have ADHD problem and out of 12 children coming
from mother absent family 4 i.e.33.33% children have ADHD behavioural problem. On
190
the other hand out of 262 children having behavioural problem coming from both
present family105 i.e. 40.08% children have conduct disorder behavioural problem, out
of 26 children coming from father absent family 10 i.e. 38.46% have conduct disorder
problem and out of 12 children coming from mother absent family 4 i.e.33.33%
children have conduct disorder behavioural problem and out of 262 children having
behavioural problem coming from both present family 114 i.e. 43.51% children have
anxiety/depression disorder behavioural problem, out of 26 children coming from father
absent family 13 i.e. 50% children have anxiety/depression disorder problem and out of
12 children coming from mother absent family7 i.e.58.53% children anxiety/depression
disorder behavioural problem.
Thus the presence of common behavioural problems in relation to type of family
shows different amount of behavioural problems among the primary school children. To
confirm the significance of these difference, Chi-Square test is applied. The result is
shown in table 4.31
Table 4.31 showing the Chi-Square values of common behavioural problems in
relation to the birth order of the children among the siblings

Inattention 2.948 2 0.229 NS
Hyperactivity 1.312 2 0.519 NS
ADHD 3.084 2 0.214 NS
Conduct .235 2 0.889 NS
Anxiety/depression 1.348 2 0.51 NS
From the table 4.31 it has been observed that the computed Chi-Square value for
inattention behavioural problem with df 2 is found 0.229 which is not significant at 0.05
level. Hence null hypothesis is accepted and it is implied that there is no relationship
191
between birth type of family and inattention behavioural problem among primary school
children. Thus it means type of family is not a determining factor of inattention
behavioural problem of primary school children.The computed Chi-Square value for
hyperactivity behavioural problem with df 2 is found 0.519 which is not significant at
0.01 level. Hence null hypothesis accepted and it is implied that there is no relationship
between type family and hyperactivity behavioural problem among primary school
children. Thus it means type of family is determining not a factor of hyperactivity
behavioural problem of primary school children.The computed Chi-Square value for
ADHD with df 2 is found 0.214 which is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence null
hypothesis is accepted and it is implied that there is no relationship between type of
family and ADHD behavioural problem among primary school children. Thus it means
type of family is not a determining factor of ADHD behavioural problem of primary
school children. The computed Chi-Square value for conduct disorder with df 2 is found
0.889 which is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence null hypothesis is accepted and it is
implied that there is no relationship between type of family and conduct behavioural
problem among primary school children. Thus it means type of family is not a
determining factor of conduct behavioural problem of primary school children. The
computed Chi-Square value for anxiety/depression disorder with df 2 is found 0.51
which is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence null hypothesis is accepted and it is implied
that there is no relationship between type of family and anxiety/depression behavioural
problem among primary school children. Thus it means type of family is not a
determining factor of anxiety/depression behavioural problem of primary school
children.
192
b)Nature of family
Table 4.32THE EXISTENCE BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS OF PRIMARY

SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO NATURE OF THE
FAMILY
Problems Nature of the family Total
Broken Joint Single
Double 10(26.32%) 26((23.64%) 34(22.37%) 70
Multiple 10(26.32%) 42(38.18%) 38(25%) 90
Single 18(47.37%) 42(38.18%) 80(52.63%) 140
Total 38 110 152 300
Percent 12.67 36.67 50.66 100
B E H A V I O U R A L PR O B L E MS I N R E L A T I O N T O
T H E N A T U R E O F T H E FA MI L Y
D M S
Nature of the family Nature of the family Nature of the family
Figure 4.18 showing the percentage of existence of behavioural problems of
primary school children in relation to the nature family
193
Interpretation
From the table 4.32 it has been observed that out of 300 identified behavioural problem
children’s family 38 i.e. 12.67% family are broken among which 18 i.e. 47.37%
children have single or one behavioural problem, 10 i.e. 26.32% children have double or
more than one behaviour problems and 10 i.e. 26.32% children have more than two
behaviour problems. 110 i.e. 36.67% family are joint family among which 42 i.e.
38.18% children have single behaviour problems, 26 i.e. 23.64% children have double
viz. more than one behaviour problems and 42 i.e. 38.18% children have multiple viz.
more than two behaviour problems. 152 i.e. 50.66% family are single family among
which 80 i.e. 52.63% children have single behaviour problems, 34 i.e. 22.37% children
have double viz. more than one behaviour problems and 38 i.e. 25% children have
multiple viz. more than two behaviour problems.
Thus the presence of behavioural problems in relation to nature of family shows
different amount of behavioural problem among the primary school children. To
shown in table 4.33
Table 4.33 showing the Chi-Square value of the existence of behavioural problems
of primary school children in relation to nature of family
Pearson Chi-Square 6.963a 4 0.138 Not Significant
194
it is implied that there is no relation between nature of family and behavioural problems
of primary school children. Thus it means that nature of family is not a determining
factor of behavioural problems of primary school children.
Table 4.34THE INATTENTION BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF PRIMARY
FAMILY
Inattention Nature of the family Total
problem Broken Joint Single
No 19 41 68 128
Yes 19(50%) 69(62.73%) 84(55.26%) 172
Total 38 110 152 300
Inattention behavioural Problem

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
B J S
Nature of the family
Figure 4.19 showing the Percentage of Inattention behavioural problem of primary
school children in relation to the nature of family
195
Interpretation
From the table 4.34 it has been observed that in broken family19 i.e. 50% children have
inattention problem. In joint family 69 i.e. 62.73% children have inattention problem
and in single family 84 i.e. 55.26% children have inattention problem.
Thus the presence of inattention behavioural problems in relation to nature of family
shown in table 4.35
Table 4.35 showing the Chi-Square value of Inattention behavioural problem of
primary school children in relation to nature of family
found 0.3 which is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence null hypothesis is accepted and it
is implied that there is no relation between nature of family and Inattention behavioural
problem of primary school children. Thus it means that nature of family is not a
determining factor of Inattention behavioural problem of primary school children
196
Table 4.36THE HYPERACTIVITY BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF PRIMARY
FAMILY
Hyperactivity Nature of the family

Total
Disorder Broken Joint Single
No 25 55 96 176
Yes 13(34.21%) 55(50%) 56(36.84%) 124
Total 38 110 152 300
Hyperactivity Disorder
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
B J S
Figure 4.20 Showing the Percentage of Hyperactivity behavioural problem of
primary school children in relation to the nature of family
Interpretation
From the table 4.36 it has been observed that in broken family13 i.e. 34.21% children
have Hyperactivity problem. In joint family 55 i.e. 50% children have Hyperactivity
197
behavioural problem and in single family 56 i.e. 36.84% children have Hyperactivity
problem.
Thus the presence of hyperactivity behavioural problem in relation to nature of family
shows different amount of behavioural problem among the primary school children. To
shown in table 4.37
4.37 Showing the Chi-Square value of the Hyperactivity behavioural problem of
it is implied that there is no relation between nature of family and Hyperactivity
behavioural problem of primary school children. Thus it means that nature of family is
not a determining factor of Hyperactivity behavioural problem of primary school
children.
198
Table 4.38THE ADHD BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF PRIMARY SCHOOL
CHILDREN IN RELATION TO NATURE OF THE FAMILY
ADHD Nature of the family

Total
Problem Broken Joint Single
No 31 74 120 225
Yes 7(18.42%) 36(32.73%) 32(21.05%) 75
Total 38 110 152 300
ADHD behavioural Problem

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
B J S
Figure 4.21showing the percentage of ADHD behavioural problem of primary

school children in relation to the nature of family
Interpretation
From the table 4.38 it has been observed that in broken family 7 i.e.18.42% children
have ADHD problem. In joint family 36 i.e. 32.73% children have ADHDbehavioural
problem and in single family 32 i.e. 21.05% children have ADHD problem.
199
Thus the presence of ADHD behavioural problem in relation to nature of family shows
shown in table 4.39
Table 4.39 showing the Chi-Square value of ADHD behavioural problem of
From the table 4.3.b.viii. it has been observed that the computed Chi-Square value for
df 2 is found 0.06 which is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence null hypothesis is
accepted and it is implied that there is no relation between nature of family and ADHD
not a determining factor of ADHD behavioural problem of primary school children
Table 4.40THE CONDUCT BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMOF PRIMARY

FAMILY
Conduct Nature of family

Total
Disorder Broken Joint Single
No 24 61 96 181
Yes 14(36.84%) 49(44.55%) 56(36.84%) 119
Total 38 110 152 300
200
Conduct behavioural problem
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
B J S
Figure 4.22. Showing the Percentage of Conduct Disorder behavioural problem
of primary school children in relation to the nature of family
Interpretation
From the table 4.40 it has been observed that in broken family14 i.e. 36.84% children
have conduct problem. In joint family 49 i.e. 44.55% children have conduct behavioural
problem and in single family 56 i.e. 36.84% children have conduct behavioural
problem.
Thus the presence of Conduct behavioural problem in relation to nature of family shows
confirm the significance of these differences, Chi-Square test is applied. The result is
shown in table 4.41
201
Table 4.41 showing the Chi-Square value of Conduct behavioural problem of
it is implied that there is no relation between nature of family and Conduct behavioural
problem of primary school children. Thus it means that nature of family is not a
determining factor of Conduct behavioural problem of primary school children
Table 4.42 THE ANXIETY/DEPRESSION DISORDER BEHAVIOURAL
PROBLEM OF PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION
TO NATURE OF THE FAMILY
Nature of family
Anxiety and
Total
Depression
Broken Joint Single
Problem
No 18 64 84 166
Yes 20(52.64) 46(41.82%) 68(44.74%) 134
Total 38 110 152 300
202
Anxiety and Depression Disorder
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
B J S
Figure 4.39 showing the percentage of Anxiety and Depression Disorder
behavioural problem of primary school children in relation to the
nature of family
Interpretation
From the table 4.42 it has been observed that in broken family 20 i.e. 52.64% children
have anxiety and depression problem. In joint family 46 i.e. 41.82% children have
Anxiety and depression behavioural problem and in single family 68 i.e. 44.74%
children have Anxiety and depression behavioural problem.
Thus the presence of Anxiety/Depression behavioural problem in relation to nature of
family shows different amount of behavioural problem among the primary school
children. To confirm the significance of these differences, Chi-Square test is applied.
The result is shown in table 4.43
203
Table 4.43 showing the Chi-Square value of Anxiety and Depression disorder
behavioural problems of primary school children in relation to
nature of family
it is implied that there is no relation between nature of family and anxiety/depression
not a determining factor of anxiety/ depression behavioural problem of primary school
children.
c) Size of the family
For the convenient of the study size of the family is categories as Large and Small
family.
204
Table 4.44 THE EXISTENCE OF BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF PRIMARY
SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO SIZE OF FAMILY
Existence of behavioural Size of the family
problem Total
Large Small
Double 34(24.46%) 36(22.22%) 70
Multiple 50(35.97%) 40(24.69%) 90
Single 55(39.57%) 85(52.47%) 140
Total 139 162 300
Percent 46.33 54 100
BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS IN RELATION

TO SIZE OF THE FAMILY
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
Double Multiple Single
Size of the family Size of the family
Figure 4.24 showing the existence of behavioural problem of primary school
children in relation to size of the family
Interpretation
children’s family 139 i.e. 46.33% family are large family among which 55 i.e. 39.57%
children have single or one behavioural problem, 34 i.e. 24.46% children have double or
205
more than one behaviour problems and 50 i.e. 35.97% children have multiple problems
or more than two behaviour problems. On the other hand 161 i.e. 54% family are small
family among which 85 i.e. 52.37% children have single behaviour problem, 40 i.e.
24.69% children have double viz. more than one behaviour problems and 36 i.e. 22.22%
children have multiple viz. more than two behaviour problems.
Thus the presence of the existence of behavioural problem in relation to size of family
confirm the significance of these differences, Chi-Square test is applied. The result is
shown in table 4.45
Table 4.45 showing the Chi-Square value of the behavioural problem of primary
school children in relation to size of family
Pearson Chi-Square 6.016a 2 0.049 Significant
found 0.049 which is significant at 0.05 level. Hence null hypothesis is rejected and it is
implied that there is a relation between size of family and behavioural problem of
primary school children. Thus it means that size of family is a determining factor of
behavioural problem of primary school children.
206
Table 4.46 THE INATTENTION BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF PRIMARY
Inattention Size of family
Problem Total
Large Small
No 56 72 128
Yes 83(59.71%) 89(55.28%) 172
Total 139 161 300

61.00%
60.00%
59.00%
58.00%
57.00%
56.00%
55.00%
54.00%
53.00%
Large Small
Figure 4.25 Showing the Percentage of Inattention behavioural problem of
primary school children in relation to size of family
Interpretation
From the table 4.46 it has been observed that in large family 83 i.e. 59.71% children
have inattention problem. On the other hand in small family 89 i.e. 55.28% children
have inattention problem.
207
Thus the presence of inattention behavioural problem in relation to size of family shows
different amount of behavioural problems among the primary school children. To
shown in table 4.47
Pearson Chi-Square .599a 1 0.439 Not Significant
Continuity Correctionb 0.432 1 0.511
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
59.31.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
From the table 47 it has been observed that the computed Chi-Square value for df 1 is
it is implied that there is no relation between size of family and Inattention behavioural
problem of primary school children. Thus it means that size of family is not determining
factor of Inattention behavioural problem of primary school children
Table 4.48HYPERACTIVITY BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF PRIMARY SCHOOL

CHILDREN IN RELATION TO SIZE OF FAMILY
Size of the family

Hyperactivity Total
Large small
No 76 100 176
Yes 63(45.32%) 61(37.89%) 124
Total 139 161 300
208
Hyperactivity behavioural problem
small
Large
34.00% 36.00% 38.00% 40.00% 42.00% 44.00% 46.00%
Figure 4.26. Showing the Percentage of Hyperactivity behavioural problem of
Interpretation
From the table 4.48 it has been observed that in large family out of 139 family 63 i.e.
45.32% children have Hyperactivity problem. In small family 61 i.e. 37.89 % children
have Hyperactivity behavioural problem.
Thus the presence of hyperactivity behavioural problem in relation to size of family
shown in table 4.49
209
4.49 Showing the Chi-Square value of the Hyperactivity behavioural problem of
57.45.
it is implied that there is no relation between size of family and Hyperactivity
behavioural problem of primary school children. Thus it means that size of family is not
a determining factor of Hyperactivity behavioural problem of primary school children
CHILDREN IN RELATION TO SIZE OF FAMILY
ADHD Size of family
Problem Total
Large Small
No 98 127 225
Yes 41(29.5%) 34(21.12%) 75
Total 139 161 300
210
ADHD problem
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Large Small
Figure 4.27. Showing the percentage of ADHD behavioural problem of primary
school children in relation to size of family
Interpretation
From the table 4.50 it has been observed that in large family 41 i.e. 29.5%% children
have Hyperactivity problem. In small family 34 i.e. 21.12% children have Hyperactivity
behavioural problem.
Thus the presence of ADHD behavioural problem in relation to size of family shows
shown in table 4.51
211
34.75.
it is implied that there is no relation between size of family and ADHD behavioural
problem of primary school children. Thus it means that size of family is not a
determining factor of ADHD behavioural problem of primary school children
Table4.52THE CONDUCT BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF PRIMARY
Size of the family
Conduct disorder Total
Large Small
No 81 100 181
Yes 58(41.73%) 61(37.89%) 119
Total 139 161 300
212
Conduct disorder behavioural problem
Small
Large
35.00% 36.00% 37.00% 38.00% 39.00% 40.00% 41.00% 42.00% 43.00%
Figure 4.28 Showing the Percentage of Conduct Disorder behavioural problem of
Interpretation
have conduct problem. In small family 61 i.e. 37.89 % children have conduct
behavioural problem.
Thus the presence of Conduct behavioural problem in relation to size of family shows
shown in table 4.53
213
Table 4.53 showing the Chi-Square value of Conduct behavioural problem of
Pearson Chi-Square .459a 1 .498 Not significant
Continuity Correctionb .313 1 .576
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 55. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table 14.
it is implied that there is no relation between size of family and Conduct behavioural
problem of primary school children. Thus it means that size of family is not determining
factor of Conduct behavioural problem of primary school children.
Table 4.54 THE ANXIETY/DEPRESSION DISORDER BEHAVIOURAL
PROBLEM OF PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION
TO SIZE OF FAMILY
Size of the family
Anxiety/Depression Total
Large Small
No 74 92 166
Yes 65(46.76%) 69(42.86%) 134
Total 139 161 300
214
Anxiety/Depression Disorder
Small
Large
40.00%41.00%42.00%43.00%44.00%45.00%46.00%47.00%48.00%
Figure 4.29. Showing the percentage of Anxiety and Depression Disorder
behavioural problem of primary school children in relation to size
of family
Interpretation
have anxiety/depression disorder. In small family 69 i.e. 42.86 % children have
anxiety/depression disorder behavioural problem.
Thus the presence of Anxiety/Depression behavioural problem in relation to size of
children. To confirm the significance of these difference, Chi-Square test is applied. The
215
Table 4.55 showing the Chi-Square value of Anxiety and Depression disorder
behavioural problem of primary school children in relation to size
of family
Pearson Chi-Square .460a 1 .497 Not significant
Continuity Correctionb .316 1 .574
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 62.09.
it is implied that there is no relation between size of family and anxiety/depression
behavioural problem of primary school children. Thus it means that size of family is not
determining factor of anxiety/depression disorder behavioural problem of primary
school children.
216
d) Educational qualification of parents
Table 4.56THE EXISTENCE OF BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS OF PRIMARY

SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO EDUCATIONAL
QUALIFICATION OF MOTHERS
Existence of Educational qualification of mothers Total
problem GR % age HS % age ILL %age MS % age PG %age PL Percent
Double 16 34.04 4 11.11 8 27.59 15 27.27 1 9.09 25 22.72 69
Multiple 14 29.79 14 38.89 4 13.79 16 29.09 1 9.09 37 33.64 86
Single 17 36.17 18 50 17 58.62 24 43.64 9 81.82 48 43.64 133
Total 47 100 36 100 29 100 55 100 11 100 110 100 288
3.8
Percent 16.32 12.5 10.07 19.09 2 38.19 100
Existence of behavioural problems in relation to

Educational qualification of mothers
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GR HS ILL MS PG PL
EDUCATION OF MOTHER
Problems Problems Problems
Figure 4.30 showing the percentage of the existence of behavioural problems of primary
school children in relation to educational qualification of mothers
217
Interpretation
children 288 i.e. 96% children have their mother. So, out of 288 mother of the
behavioural problem children 47 i.e. 16.32% mother are graduate among them 17 i.e.
36.17% mothers’ children have single problem,16 i.e. 34.04% mothers’ children have
double viz. more than one problem and 14 i.e.29.79% mothers’ children have multiple
viz. more than two problems. 36 i.e. 12.5% mothers are Higher secondary (H.S) passed
and among them 18 i.e. 50% mothers’ children have single problem,4 i.e. 11.11%
mothers’ children have double viz. more than one problem and 14 i.e.38.89% mothers’
children have multiple viz. more than two problems. 29 i.e. 10.07% mothers are
illiterate (ILL) means not going to school and among them 17 i.e. 58.62% mothers’
children have single problem, 8 i.e. 27.59% mothers’ children have double viz. more
than one problem and 4 i.e.13.79% mothers’ children have multiple viz. more than two
problems. 55 i.e. 19.09% mothers are Middle School (MS) holder and among them 24
i.e. 43.64% mothers’ children have single problem, 15 i.e. 27.27% mothers’ children
have double viz. more than one problem and 16 i.e.29.09% mothers’ children have
multiple viz. more than two problems. 11 i.e. 3.82% mothers are Post Graduate holder
(P.G) and among them 9 i.e. 81.82% mothers’ children have single problem, 1 i.e.
9.09% mothers’ children have double viz. more than one problem and 1 i.e.9.09%
mother’ children have multiple viz. more than two problems. 110 i.e. 38.19 % mothers’
educational qualification is primary level (PL) and among them 48 i.e. 43.64% mothers’
children have single problem, 25 i.e. 22.72% mothers’ children have double viz. more
than one problem and 37 i.e.33.64% mothers’ children have multiple viz. more than two
problems.
218
Thus the presence of existence of behavioural problems in relation to educational
qualifications of mother shows different amount of behavioural problems among the
Table 4.57 Showing the Chi-Square value of behavioural problem of primary
school children in relation to educational qualification of mother
a. 2 cells (11.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 2.64.
From the table 4.57 it has been observed that the computed Chi-Square value for df 10
is found 0.076 which is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence null hypothesis is accepted
and it is implied that there is no relation between educational qualification of mother
and existence of behavioural problems of primary school children. Thus it means that
educational qualification of mother is not a determining factor of existence of
219
Table 4.58 THE EXISTENCE OF BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS OFPRIMARY
SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO EDUCATIONAL
QUALIFICATION OF FATHERS
Existence Educational qualification of fathers Total
of problems GR Percent HS Percent ILL Percent MS Percent PG Percent PL Percent
D 13 23.64 9 23.68 0 0 7 11.11 1 25 31 27.93 61
M 16 29.09 11 28.95 2 66.67 22 34.92 1 25 34 30.63 86
S 26 47.27 18 47.37 1 33.33 34 53.97 2 50 46 41.44 127
Total 55 100 38 100 3 100 63 100 4 100 111 100 274
% age 20.07 13.87 1.09 22.99 1.46 40.51 91.33

educational qualification of fathers
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GR HS ILL MS PG PL
Figure 4.31 showing the existence of behavioural problems of primary school

children in relation to educational qualification of fathers
Interpretation
children 274 i.e. 91.33% children have their father. So, out of 274 father of the
behavioural problem children 55 i.e. 20.07% fathers are graduate among them 26 i.e.
220
47.27% fathers’ children have single problem,13 i.e. 23.64 % fathers’ children have
double viz. more than one problem and 16 i.e.29.09% fathers’ children have multiple
viz. more than two problems. 38 i.e. 13.87% fathers are Higher secondary (H.S) passed
and among them 18 i.e. 47.37% fathers’ children have single problem,9 i.e. 23.68%
fathers’ children have double viz. more than one problem and 11 i.e. 28.95% children
have multiple viz. more than two problems. 3 i.e. 1.09% fathers are illiterate (ILL)
means did not attended formal school and among them 1 i.e. 33.33% fathers’ children
have single problem, and 2 i.e. 66.67% children have multiple viz. more than two
problems but their children do not have double problems. 63 i.e. 22.99% fathers are
Middle School (MS) holder and among them 34 i.e. 53.97% fathers’ children have
single problem, 7 i.e. 11.11% fathers’ children have double viz. more than one problem
and 22 i.e.34.92% fathers’ children have multiple viz. more than two problems. 4 i.e.
1.46% fathers are Post Graduate holder (P.G) and among them 2 i.e. 50% fathers’
children have single problem, 1 i.e. 25% fathers’ children have double viz. more than
one problem and 1 i.e. 25% fathers’ children have multiple viz. more than two
problems. 111 i.e. 40.51% fathers’ educational qualification is primary level holder (PL)
and among them 46 i.e. 41.44% fathers’ children have single problem, 31 i.e. 27.93%
fathers’ children have double viz. more than one problem and 34 i.e.30.63% children
have multiple viz. more than two problems.
Thus the presence of behavioural problems in relation to educational qualification of
father shows different amount of behavioural problems among the primary school
221
Table 4.59 showing the Chi-Square value of existence of behavioural problems of
primary school children in relation to educational qualification of
fathers
Pearson Chi-Square 9.064a 10 .526 Not Significant
Likelihood Ratio 10.111 10 .431
From the table 4.59 b it has been observed that the computed Chi-Square value for df 10
and it is implied that there is no relation between educational qualification of fathers and
existence of behavioural problems of primary school children. Thus it means that
educational qualification of father is not a determining factor of existence of
222
e) Occupation of parents
Table 4.60 THEEXISTENCE OFBEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS OF PRIMARY
SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO OCCUPATION OF
MOTHERS
Occupation of mothers Total

Existence of
Any No
problems % age Business % age Govt. % age % age Pvt. % age Teacher % age
other job
D 17 30.36 0 0 1 50 43 21.94 6 46.15 2 14.29 69
M 17 30.36 2 28.57 0 0 61 31.12 3 23.08 3 21.43 86
S 22 39.28 5 71.43 1 50 92 46.94 4 30.77 9 64.28 133
Total 56 100 7 100 2 100 196 100 13 100 14 100 288
Percent 19.44 2.43 0.69 68.06 4.51 4.86

occupation of mothers
80
60
40
20
0
Any other Business Govt. No Job Pvt Teaching
D M S

children in relation to occupation of mothers
223
Interpretation
From the table 4.60 it has been observed that out of 288 mothers of identified
behavioural problem children, 56 i.e. 19.44% mothers are engaged in any other job
among which 22 i.e. 39.28% mothers’ children have single(S) problem. 17 i.e. 30.36%
mothers’ children have double (D) viz. more than one problem and 17 i.e. 30.06%
mothers’ children have multiple (M) viz. more than two behavioural problems. 7 i.e.
2.43% mothers are engaged in business among which 7 i.e. 2.43% mothers’ children
have single(S) problem and 2 i.e. 28.57% mothers’ children have multiple (M) viz.
more than two behavioural problems. Their children do not have double problems.2 i.e.
0.69% mothers are engaged in Govt. Job among which 1 i.e. 50% mothers’ children
have single(S) problem and 1 i.e. 50% mothers’ children have double (D) viz. more than
one problem. But their children do not have multiple viz. more than two problems.196
i.e. 68.08% mothers are not engaged in any job or they are House wives only among
which 92 i.e. 46.94% mothers’ children have single(S) problem.43 i.e. 21.94% mothers’
children have double (D) viz. more than one problem and 61 i.e. 31.12% mothers’
children have multiple (M) viz. more than two behavioural problems. 13 i.e. 4.51%
mothers are engaged in Private job among which 4 i.e. 30.77% mothers’ children have
single(S) problem.6 i.e. 46.15% mothers’ children have double (D) viz. more than one
problem and 3 i.e. 23.08% mothers’ children have multiple (M) viz. more than two
behavioural problems. 14 i.e. 4.86% mothers are engaged in Teaching job among which
9 i.e. 64.28% mothers’ children have single(S) problem.2 i.e. 14.29% mothers’ children
have double (D) viz. more than one problem and 3 i.e. 21.43% mothers’ children have
multiple (M) viz. more than two behavioural problems.
224
Thus the presence of behavioural problems in relation to occupation of mothers shows
shown in table 4.61
Table 4.61showing the Chi-Square value of existence of behavioural problems of

primary school children in relation to occupation of mothers

a. 10 cells (55.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .48.
From the table 4.61 it has been observed that the computed Chi-Square value for df 10
and it is implied that there is no relation between occupation of mother and existence of
behavioural problems of primary school children. Thus it means that occupation of
mother is not a determining factor of existence of behavioural problems of primary
school children.
225
Table 4.62THE EXISTENCE OF BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS OF PRIMARY
SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO OCCUPATION OF
FATHERS
OCCUPATION OF FATHERS Total

Existence of
Any
problems % age Business % age Govt. % age Pvt. % age Teacher % age
other
D 25 24.75 16 26.23 4 15.38 14 17.5 2 33.33 61
M 32 31.68 23 37.7 9 34.62 22 27.5 0 0 86
S 44 43.57 22 36.07 13 50 44 55 4 66.67 127
Total 101 100 61 100 26 100 80 100 6 100 274
Percent 36.86 22.26 9.49 29.19 2.19 100

occupation of fathers
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Any other Business Govt. Pvt. Teacher
OCCUPATION OF FATHER
Figure 4.33. Showing the existence of behavioural problems of primary school children in
relation to occupation of fathers
Interpretation
From the table 4.62 it has been observed that out of 274 fathers of identified
behavioural problem children, 101 i.e. 36.86% fathers are engaged in any other job
among which 44 i.e. 43.57% fathers’ children have single(S) problem. 25 i.e. 24.75%
fathers’ children have double (D) viz. more than one problem and 32 i.e. 31.68%
226
fathers’ children have multiple (M) viz. more than two behavioural problems. 61 i.e.
22.26% fathers are engaged in business among which 22 i.e. 36.07% fathers’ children
have single(S) problem, 16 i.e. 26.23% fathers’ children have Double problems and 23
i.e. 37.7% fathers’ children have multiple (M) viz. more than two behavioural
problems.26 i.e. 9.49% fathers are engaged in Govt. Job among which 13 i.e. 50%
fathers’ children have single(S) problem, 4 i.e. 15.38% fathers’ children have double
(D) viz. more than one problem and 9 i.e. 34.62% fathers’ children have Multiple
behavioural problems. 80 i.e. 29.19% fathers are engaged in Private job among which
44 i.e. 55% fathers’ children have single(S) problem.14 i.e. 17.5% fathers’ children
have double (D) viz. more than one problem and 22 i.e. 27.5% fathers’ children have
multiple (M) viz. more than two behavioural problems and 6 i.e. 2.19% fathers are
engaged in Teaching job among which 4 i.e. 66.67% fathers’ children have single(S)
problem.2 i.e. 33.33% fathers’ children have double (D) viz. more than one problem.
But their children do not have multiple (M) viz. more than two behavioural problems.
Thus the presence of behavioural problems in relation to occupation of fathers shows
shown in table 4.63

primary school children in relation to occupation of fathers

227
it is implied that there is no relation between occupation of father and behavioural
problems of primary school children. Thus it means that occupation of father is not a
determining factor of behavioural problems of primary school children.
f) Monthly income of family
For the convenient and clarity of the study monthly income of the family is categorised
as High income group (H), Medium income group (M) and Low income group (L)
family.

SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO MONTHLY
INCOME OF FAMILY
Monthly income of the family

Existence of
Total
behavioural
High Low Medium
problem
Double 12(23.53%) 46(22.55%) 12(26.67%) 70
Multiple 15(29.41%) 64(31.37%) 11(24.44%) 90
Single 24(47.06%) 94(46.08%) 22(48.89%) 140
Total 51(17%) 204(68%) 45(15%) 300
228
monthly income of the family
15% 17%
68%
Monthly income of the family H Monthly income of the family L

Monthly income of the family M
children in relation to monthly income of family
Interpretation
children’s family 51 i.e. 17% family’s monthly income is high. Among which 24 i.e.
47.06% children have single or one behavioural problem, 15 i.e. 29.41% children have
multiple or more than two behavioural problems and 12 i.e. 23.53% children have
double viz. more than one behavioural problems. 204 i.e. 68% family’s monthly income
is low. Among which 94 i.e. 46.08% children have single behavioural problem, 64 i.e.
31.37% children have multiple viz. more than two behavioural problems and 46 i.e.
22.55% children have double viz. more than one behavioural problems. 45 i.e. 15%
family’s monthly income is medium. Among which 22 i.e. 48.89% children have single
behavioural problem, 11 i.e. 24.44% children have multiple viz. more than two
behavioural problems and 12 i.e. 26.67% children have double viz. more than one
behavioural problems.
229
Thus the presence of behavioural problems in relation to monthly income of family
shown in table 4.65

primary school children in relation to monthly income of family
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
it is implied that there is no relation between monthly income of family and existence
ofbehavioural problems of primary school children. Thus it means that monthly of
family is not a determining factor of existence of behavioural problems of primary
school children
Table 4.66THE INATTENTION BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF PRIMARY SCHOOL

CHILDREN IN RELATION TO MONTHLY INCOME OF FAMILY
Inattention Monthly income of the family

Total
Problem High Low Medium
No 25(49.02%) 79(38.73%) 24(53.33%) 128
Yes 26(50.98%) 125(61.27%) 21(46.67%) 172
Total 51 204 45 300
230
INATTENTIO N B EH AVIO URAL
PRO B LEM
61.27%
50.98% 46.67%
H L M
M ONTHLY INCOM E OF THE FAM ILY
Figure 4.35 showing the percentage of Inattention behavioural problem of primary
school children in relation to monthly income of family
Interpretation
From the table 4.66 it has been observed that out of 51 i.e.17% high income group of
family 26 i.e. 50.98% children have inattention behavioural problem. Out of 204 i.e.
68% low income group of family 125 i.e. 61.27% children have inattention behavioural
problem and among the 45 i.e. 15% medium income group of family 21 i.e. 46.67%
children have inattention behavioural problem.
Thus the presence of inattention behavioural problem in relation to monthly income of
231
it is implied that there is no relation between monthly income of family and inattention
behavioural problem of primary school children. Thus it means that monthly income of
family is not a determining factor of inattention behavioural problem of primary school
children
Table 4.68THE HYPERACTIVITY BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF PRIMARY
INCOME OF FAMILY
Hyperactivity Monthly income of the family

Total
Disorder High Low Medium
No 24 125 27 176
Yes 27((52.94%) 79((38.73%) 18(40%) 124
Total 51 204 45 300
232
Hyperactivity disorder in relation to
monthly incom of family
52.94%
38.73% 40%
H L M
Figure 4.36 showing the percentage of hyperactivity behavioural problem of
Interpretation
From the table 4.68 it has been observed that out of 51 i.e.17% high income group of
family 27 i.e. 52.94% children have hyperactivity behavioural problem. Out of 204 i.e.
68% low income group of family 79 i.e. 38.73% children have hyperactivity
behavioural problem and among the 45 i.e. 15% medium income group of family 18 i.e.
40% children have hyperactivity behavioural problem.
Thus the presence of hyperactivity behavioural problem in relation to monthly income
of family shows different amount of behavioural problems among the primary school
233
Table 4.69 showing the Chi-Square value of Hyperactivity behavioural problem of
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
18.60.
it is implied that there is no relation between monthly income of family and
hyperactivity behavioural problem of primary school children. Thus it means that
monthly income of family is not a determining factor of hyperactivity behavioural
problem of primary school children
CHILDREN IN RELATION TO MONTHLY INCOME OF
FAMILY
ADHD Monthly income of the family

Total
Problem High Low Medium
No 36 154 35 225
Yes 15(29.41%) 50(24.51%) 10(22.22%) 75
Total 51 204 45 300
234
ADHD behavioural Problem in relation to
monthly income of family
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
H L M
Figure 4.37 showing the percentage of ADHD behavioural problem of primary
school children in relation to monthly income of family
Interpretation
From the table 4.70 it has been observed that out of 51 high income group of family 15
i.e. 29.41% children have ADHD behavioural problem. Out of 204 low income group of
family 50 i.e. 24.51% children have ADHD behavioural problem and among the 45
medium income group of family 10 i.e. 22.22% children have ADHD behavioural
problem.
Thus the presence of ADHD behavioural problem in relation to monthly income of
family shows different amount of behavioural problems among the primary school
235
it is implied that there is no relation between monthly income of family and ADHD
family is not determining factor of ADHD behavioural problem of primary school
children
Table 4.72THE CONDUCT BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF PRIMARY
INCOME OF FAMILY
Conduct Monthly income of the family

Total
No 28 128 25 181
Yes 23(45.09%) 76(37.25%) 20(44.44%) 119
Total 51 204 45 300
236
Conduct disorder in relation to monthly
income of family
50.00% 45.09% 44.44%
45.00%
40.00% 37.25%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
H L M
Figure 4.38 showing the percentage of Conduct Disorder behavioural problem of
Interpretation
i.e. 45.09% children have conduct disorder behavioural problem. Out of 204 low
income group of family 76 i.e. 37.25% children have conduct disorder behavioural
problem and among the 45 medium income group of family 20 i.e. 44.44% children
have conduct disorder behavioural problem.
Thus the presence of conduct behavioural problem in relation to monthly income of
237
Table 4.73 showing the Chi-Square value of Conduct disorder behavioural
problem of primary school children in relation to monthly income
of family
it is implied that there is no relation between monthly income of family and Conduct
family is not a determining factor Conduct behavioural problem of primary school
children
Table 4.74THE ANXIETY/DEPRESSION BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM OF
PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN IN RELATION TO
MONTHLY INCOME OF FAMILY
Anxiety/Depression Monthly income of family

Total
No 34 110 22 166
Yes 17(33.33%) 94(46.08%) 23(51.11%) 134
Total 51 204 45 300
238
Anxiety and depression disorder in relation to
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
H L M
Figure 4.39 showing the percentage of anxiety and depression disorder behavioural
problem of primary school children in relation to monthly income of
family
Interpretation
i.e. 33.33% children have anxiety/depression behavioural problem. Out of 204 low
income group of family 94 i.e. 46.08% children have anxiety/depression behavioural
problem and among the 45 medium income group of family 23 i.e. 51.11% children
have anxiety/depression behavioural problem.
Thus the presence of anxiety/depression behavioural problem in relation to monthly
income of family of shows different amount of behavioural problems among the
239
Table 4.75 showing the Chi-Square value of anxiety and depression disorder
behavioural problem of primary school children in relation to
it is implied that there is no relation between monthly income of family and
anxiety/depression disorder behavioural problem of primary school children. Thus it
means that monthly income of family is not a determining factor of anxiety/depression
behavioural problem of primary school children
Objective 4 - To study the behavioural problems of primary school children in relation
to some selected parenting styles.
Ho3 - There is no significant difference in behavioural problems of primary school
children in relation to different parenting styles.
The role of parental behaviour or parenting style in the development of behavioural
problems among the primary school children is also taken into consideration. Parents
are the first socializing agents from whom children acquire many of their behaviour for
a successful adaption to the world in childhood. So, table 4.76, 4.78, 4.80, 4.82, and
4.84 showing the mean score of different behavioural problems of primary school
240
children in relation to six different dimensions of parenting styles such as- Parental care,
pampering, over protective/over conscious, social/cultural value, rejection and
disciplinary actions of the parents. Table 4.77, 4.79, 4.81, 4.83 and 4.85 showing the
significance of different behavioural problems in relation to six different dimensions of
parenting styles.
Table 4.76THE MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION AND STANDARD ERROR

OF MEAN OF THE CHILDREN HAVING AND NOT HAVING
INATTENTION BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS IN RELATION TO
SOME PARENTING STYLES
Different Inattention N Mean Std. Std. Error
dimensions Deviation Mean
Disciplinary Yes 172 5.1047 1.64391 .12535
action No 128 4.9453 1.64728 .14560
Yes 172 3.1395 1.73820 .13254

Rejecting
No 128 3.1328 1.78079 .15740
Cultural/Social Yes 172 6.6744 1.43018 .10905
value No 128 6.3516 1.55016 .13702
Over Yes 172 3.9593 2.66526 .20322
protective/over
No 128 4.3281 2.66830 .23585
conscious
Yes 172 2.7442 2.47413 .18865

Pampering
No 128 2.7500 2.37440 .20987
Lack of Yes 172 6.5756 1.44695 .11033
Parental care No 128 6.1250 1.69761 .15005
241
Parental care 6.6756
Pampering 2.7442
Over conscious/protective 3.9593
Cultural value 6.6744
Rejecting 3.1395
Discipline 5.1047
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 4.40 Showing Mean scores of the children having inattention behavioural
problem in relation to some parenting styles
Interpretation
In table 4.76Showing the children having inattention behavioural problem in relation to
different parenting styles. Out of 300 behavioural problem children, 172 children have
inattention behavioural problem. In case of disciplinary action of the parents of children
having inattention problem, the mean score is found to be 5.1047. In case of rejecting or
neglecting parenting style, the Mean score is found as 3.1395.The Mean score of
parenting style in relation to cultural/ social value is found to be 6.6744.On the other
hand in case of over protective/ conscious parenting style Mean is calculated as
3.9593.But the parenting style as pampering with the children having inattention
problem, the Mean score is found to be as 2.7442. In case of the parental care of the
inattention behavioural problem, the Mean score is calculated as 6.5756.It means,
242
majority of the inattention behavioural problem observed among those children where
there is lack of proper cultural/social value at home.
Thus the presence of children having inattention behavioural problem and not having
inattention behavioural problem in relation to different parenting styles shows the
different amount of Mean or average score. In order to know the significance of these
mean difference of children having and not having inattention problem in relation to
different parenting styles ‘t’ test is applied. It may help to know the significance of
mean difference of children having inattention problem in relation to different
dimensions of parenting style or behaviour. The summary of this ‘t’ test analysis is
shown in table 4.77
Table 4.77‘t’ test showing the significance of mean difference in inattention
behavioural problem in different dimensions of parenting style
Different Inattention N Mean Std.Deviation Mean Std.Error df t Significance

dimensions of problem Difference Difference
parenting style
Disciplinary Yes 172 5.1047 1.64391 0.15934 0.19207 298 0.83 0.407**
action No 128 4.9453 1.64728
Rejecting Yes 172 3.1395 1.7382 0.00672 0.20504 298 0.033 0.974**
No 128 3.1328 1.78079
Cultural and Yes 172 6.6744 1.43018 0.32286 0.17306 298 1.866 0.063**
social value No 128 6.3516 1.55016
Over Yes 172 3.9593 2.66526 0.36882 0.31127 298 1.185 0.237**
protective/over No 128 4.3281 2.6683
conscious
Pampering Yes 172 2.7442 2.47413 0.00581 0.28391 298 0.02 0.984**
No 128 2.75 2.3744
Parental care Yes 172 6.5756 1.44695 0.45058 0.18195 298 2.476 0.014*
No 128 6.125 1.69761
*=Significant **= Not significant
From the table 4.77 it has been observed that the t value calculated from the distribution
in case of disciplinary action of parents, rejecting, cultural/social value, over
protective/conscious and pampering parenting styles towards their children having
inattention behavioural problem are found to be .407, .974, .063, .237 and .984
243
respectively with df 298 which are not significant .Thus it is implied that there is no
relationship between inattention behavioural problem and some parenting style such as
discipline, rejecting, cultural value, over protective/ conscious and pampering style of
the parents. Therefore null hypothesis accepted and it means discipline, rejecting or
neglecting, lack of socio-cultural value, over protective/ conscious and pampering style
of the parents are not determining factor of inattention behaviour problem. But the t
value calculated from the distribution in case of lack of parental care is found to be .014
with df 298 which is significant at 0.01 level. Therefore null hypothesis rejected. Thus it
is implied that there is significant relationship between lack of parental care and
inattention behavioural problem. It means lack of parental care is a determining factor
of inattention behavioural problem of primary school children viz. due to the lack of
proper parental care inattention behavioural problem may occur among the primary
school children.
244
Table 4.78 THE MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION AND STANDARD ERROR
HYPERACTIVITY BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM IN RELATION
TO SOME PARENTING STYLES
Dimensions of
Std. Std. Error
different Parenting Hyperactivity N Mean
Deviation Mean
style
Yes 124 4.8145 1.80048 0.16169
Disciplinary action
No 176 5.1932 1.51078 0.11388
Yes 124 3.0161 1.88267 0.16907
Rejecting
No 176 3.2216 1.65677 0.12488
Yes 124 6.3871 1.57061 0.14105
Cultural/social value
No 176 6.642 1.42317 0.10728
Over Yes 124 4.5645 2.70574 0.24298
protective/conscious No 176 3.8011 2.60334 0.19623
Yes 124 3.0242 2.63332 0.23648
Pampering
No 176 2.5511 2.25963 0.17033
Lack of proper parental Yes 124 6.2661 1.46009 0.13112
care 176 6.4659 1.64542 0.12403
245
Hyperactivity problem
7 6.3871 6.2661
6
4.8145 4.5645
5
4
3.0161 3.0242
3
2
1
0
Figure 4.41 Showing the Mean scores of the children having hyperactivity
behavioural problem in relation to some parenting styles
Interpretation
Table 4.78 showing the parental behaviour in case of children having hyperactivity
behavioural problem. Out of 300 behavioural problem children, 124 children have
hyperactivity problem. In case of disciplinary action of the parents of children having
hyperactivity problem, the mean score is found to be 4.8145. In case of rejecting
parental style, the Mean score is found as 3.0161.The Mean score in case of parenting
style in relation to cultural/ social value is found to be 6.3871.On the other hand in case
of over protective/ conscious parenting style Mean is calculated as 4.5645. But the
pampering parenting style with the children having hyperactivity problem, the Mean
score is found to be as 3.0242. In case of lack of proper parental care of the
hyperactivity behavioural problem, the Mean score is calculated as 6.266.It means
246
children having hyperactivity behavioural problem mainly due to lack of proper
cultural/social value in the family followed by lack of proper parental care and improper
disciplinary action of the parents.
Thus the presence of children having hyperactivity behavioural problem and not
having hyperactivity behavioural problem in relation to different parenting style shows
the different amount of Mean or average score. In order to know the significance of
these mean difference of children having and not having hyperactivity problem in
relation to different parenting styles ‘t’ test is applied. It may help to know the
significance of mean difference of children having hyperactivity problem in relation to
different dimensions of parenting style. The summary of this ‘t’ test analysis is shown in
table 4.79
Table 4.79 ‘t’ test showing significance of mean difference in hyperactivity
behavioural problem in different dimensions of parenting style
Different Hyperacti N Mean Std.Deviation Mean Std.Error df t Significance

dimensions of vity Difference Difference
parenting style problem
Disciplinary Yes 124 4.8145 1.80048 0.37867 0.19188 298 1.973 0.049*
action No 176 5.1932 1.51078
Rejecting Yes 124 3.0161 1.88267 0.20546 0.20559 298 0.999 0.318**
No 176 3.2216 1.65677
Cultural and Yes 124 6.3871 1.57061 0.25495 0.1742 298 1.464 0.144**
social value No 176 6.642 1.42317
Over Yes 124 4.5645 2.70574 0.76338 0.31024 298 2.461 0.014*
conscious
Pampering Yes 124 3.0242 2.63332 0.47306 0.28383 298 1.667 0.097
No 176 2.5511 2.25963
Parental care Yes 124 6.2661 1.46009 0.19978 0.18426 298 1.084 0.269**
No 176 6.4659 1.64542
*= Significant
**= Not significant
247
in case of parenting styles rejecting, cultural/social value, parental care and pampering
towards their children are found to be .318, .144, .279 and .097 respectively with df 298
which are not significant .Thus it is implied that there is no relationship between
hyperactivity behavioural problem and some parenting style such as rejecting,
cultural/socio value, parental care and pampering style of the parents. Therefore null
hypothesis accepted and it means rejecting, lack of cultural/socio value in family, lack
of proper parental care and pampering style of the parents are not determining factor of
hyperactivity behaviour problem. But the t value calculated from the distribution in
case of disciplinary action of the parents and over protective/conscious style of the
parents are found to be .049 and .014 with df 298 which are significant at 0.05 level.
Therefore null hypothesis rejected. Thus it is implied that there is significant
relationship between disciplinary action of the parents and over protective/conscious
style of the parents and hyperactivity behavioural problem. It means disciplinary action
of the parents and over protective/conscious parenting style of the parents are the
determining factor of hyperactivity behavioural problem of primary school children viz.
due to the lack of proper disciplinary action of the parents and over protective/conscious
parenting style of the parents, hyperactivity behavioural problem occur among the
primary school children.
248
ADHD BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM IN RELATION TO SOME
PARENTING STYLES
Std.
Different dimensions Std.
ADHD N Mean Error
of parenting style Deviation
Mean
Yes 75 5.04 1.70405 0.19677
Disciplinary action
No 225 5.0356 1.62804 0.10854
Yes 75 3.16 1.8012 0.20798
Rejecting
No 225 3.1289 1.74138 0.11609
Yes 75 6.5333 1.51865 0.17536
Cultural/social value
No 225 6.5378 1.48193 0.0988
Over Yes 75 4.2933 2.74489 0.31695
Protective/conscious No 225 4.0578 2.64596 0.1764
Yes 75 2.8133 2.58736 0.29876
Pampering
No 225 2.7244 2.37821 0.15855
Lack of proper Yes 75 6.4267 1.45354 0.16784
parental care No 225 6.3689 1.61243 0.1075
ADHD behavioural problem
Lack of parental care 6.4267
Pampering 2.8133
Cultural value 7
Rejecting 3.16
Disciplinary action 5.04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure 4.42 The Mean scores of the children having ADHD behavioural problem in relation to some
parenting styles
249
Interpretation
Table 4.80 showing the different parenting styles towards the ADHD behavioural
problem children of primary school. Out of 300 behavioural problem children, 75
children have ADHD problem. In case of disciplinary action of the parents of children
having ADHD problem, the mean score is found to be 5.0400. In case of rejecting
parental style, the Mean score is found as 3.1600.The Mean score in case of parenting
style in relation to cultural/ social value is found to be 6.5333.On the other hand in case
of over protective/ conscious parenting style Mean is calculated as 4.2933.But the
parental style as pampering with the children having ADHD problem, the Mean score is
found to be as 2.8133. In case of the parental care of the ADHD behavioural problem,
the Mean score is calculated as 6.4267.Thus it means that ADHD behavioural problem
occur among those children where there is lack of proper cultural/ social value in the
family followed by lack of proper parental care and lack of proper disciplinary action in
the family.
Thus the presence of children having ADHD behavioural problem and not having
ADHD behavioural problem in relation to different parenting style shows the different
amount of Mean or average score. In order to know the significance of these mean
difference of children having and not having hyperactivity problem in relation to
different parenting style ‘t’ test is applied. It may help to know the significance of mean
difference of children having ADHD behavioural problem in relation to different
dimensions of parenting style. The summary of this ‘t’ test analysis is shown in table
4.81
250
Table 4.81 ‘t’ test showing significance of mean difference in ADHD behavioural
problem in different dimensions of parenting style
Different Adhd N Mean Std.Deviat Mean Std.Error df t Significan

dimensions of problem ion Difference Difference ce
parenting style
action No 225 5.0356 1.62804
Rejecting Yes 75 3.16 1.8012 0.03111 0.23419 298 0.133 0.894**
No 225 3.1289 1.74138
Cultural and Yes 75 6.5333 1.51865 0.00444 0.19882 298 0.022 0.982**
social value No 225 6.5378 1.48193
Over Yes 75 4.2933 2.74489 0.23556 0.35612 298 0.661 0.509**
conscious
Pampering Yes 75 2.8133 2.58736 0.08889 0.32424 298 0.274 0.784**
No 225 2.7244 2.37821
No 225 6.3689 1.61243
**= Not significant
in case of different parenting style such as disciplinary action of the parents, Rejecting,
lack of proper cultural/social value in the family, over protective/conscious, pampering
and lack of proper parental care of the parents towards their children having ADHD
behavioural problem are found to be .984, .894, .982, .509,.784 and .783 respectively
with df 298 which are not significant .Thus it is implied that there is no relationship
between ADHD behavioural problem and some parenting style such as disciplinary
action of the parents, rejecting or neglecting, absence of cultural/social value, over
protective/conscious, pampering and lack of proper parental care of the parents.
Therefore null hypothesis accepted and it means different dimensions of parenting style
such as disciplinary action, rejecting or neglecting, lack of cultural/social value in the
family, over protective/conscious, pampering and lack of parental care of the parents are
not determining factor of ADHD behavioural problem.
251
Table 4.82 THE MEAN,STANDARD DEVIATION AND STANDARD ERROR
CONDUCT BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM IN RELATION TO
SOME PARENTING STYLES
Different dimensions of Std.

Conduct N Mean Std. Error Mean
parenting style Deviation
Disciplinary action of Yes 119 5.1513 1.60845 0.14745
the parents No 181 4.9613 1.66788 0.12397
Yes 119 3.1176 1.65282 0.15151
Rejecting
No 181 3.1492 1.82113 0.13536
Lack of cultural/social Yes 119 6.6807 1.37738 0.12626
value No 181 6.442 1.55392 0.1155
Over protective/ Yes 119 4.3361 2.66896 0.24466
conscious No 181 3.9724 2.66548 0.19812
Yes 119 2.7899 2.46286 0.22577
Pampering
No 181 2.7182 2.41135 0.17923
Lack of proper parental Yes 119 6.3866 1.63701 0.15006
care No 181 6.3812 1.53242 0.1139
Conduct behavioural problem
Lack of parental care 6.3866
Pampering 2.7899
Rejecting 3.1176
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 4.43 showing the Mean scores of the children having conduct behavioural
problem in relation to different parenting styles
252
Interpretation
Table 4.82 showing the different dimensions parental style of conduct behavioural
problem children of the primary school. Out of 300 behavioural problem children, 119
children have conduct behavioural problem. In case of disciplinary action of the parents
of children having conduct problem, the mean score is found to be 5.1513. In case of
rejecting or neglecting parenting style, the Mean score is found as 3.1176.The Mean
score in relation to cultural/ social value is found to be 6.6807.On the other hand in case
of over protective/ conscious parenting style Mean is calculated as 4.3361.But
pampering as a parenting style of children having conduct behavioural problem, the
Mean score is found to be as 2.7899. But lack of parental care in relation to conduct
behavioural problem children, the Mean score is calculated as 6.3866. It means absence
of proper social/cultural value in the family is highly responsible for the development of
con duct behavioural problem among the primary school children followed by lack of
proper parental care and improper disciplinary action of the parents.
Thus the presence of children having conduct behavioural problem and not
having conduct behavioural problem in relation to different parenting styles shows the
different amount of Mean or average scores. In order to know the significance of these
mean difference of children having and not having conduct behavioural problem in
relation to different dimensions of parenting style ‘t’ test is applied. It may help to know
the significance of mean difference of children having conduct behavioural problem in
relation to different dimensions of parenting style. The summary of this ‘t’ test analysis
is shown in table 4.83
253
Table 4.83 ‘t’ test showing significance of mean difference in conduct behavioural
problem in different dimensions of parenting style
Different Conduct N Mean Std. Mean Std.Error df t Significan

dimensions of problem Deviation Difference Difference ce
parenting style
action No 181 4.9613 1.66788
Rejecting Yes 119 3.1176 1.65282 0.03152 0.20729 298 0.152 0.879**
No 181 3.1492 1.82113
Cultural and Yes 119 6.6807 1.37738 0.23868 0.17544 298 1.361 0.175**
social value No 181 6.442 1.55392
Over Yes 119 4.3351 2.66896 0.36376 0.31474 298 1.156 0.249**
conscious
Pampering Yes 119 2.7899 2.46286 0.07168 0.287 298 0.25 0.803**
No 181 2.7244 2.41135
No 181 6.3812 1.53242
**= Not significant
in relation to different dimensions of parenting style such as disciplinary action of the
parents, Rejecting or neglecting, lack of cultural/social value in the family, over
protective/conscious, pampering and lack of proper parental care of the parents towards
their children having conduct behavioural problem are found to be .329, .879, .175,
.249,.803 and .977 respectively with df 298 which are not significant at 0.05 level .Thus
it is implied that there is no relationship between conduct behavioural problem and
different dimensions of parenting style such as disciplinary action of the parents,
rejecting or neglecting, lack of cultural/social value in the family, over
protective/conscious, pampering and lack of proper parental care of the parents.
Therefore null hypothesis accepted and it means different dimensions of parenting style
such as disciplinary action of the parents, rejecting, lack of cultural/social value in the
254
family, over protective/conscious, pampering parenting style and lack of parental care
of the parents are not determining factor of conduct behavioural problem.
OF MEAN OF CHILDREN HAVING AND NOT HAVING
ANXIETY/DEPRESSION DISORDER BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM
IN RELATION TO SOME PARENTING STYLES
Different Std.
Std.
dimensions of Anxiety/depression N Mean Error
Deviation
parenting style Mean
Disciplinary action Yes 134 5.3209 1.37431 0.11872
of the parents No 166 4.8072 1.80543 0.14013
Yes 134 3.4179 1.71372 0.14804

Rejecting
No 166 2.9096 1.75749 0.13641
Lack of Yes 134 6.6567 1.51238 0.13065
cultural/social value No 166 6.4398 1.46659 0.11383
Over Yes 134 3.7388 2.7528 0.23781
protective/conscious No 166 4.4217 2.56607 0.19917
Yes 134 2.3806 2.2337 0.19296

Pampering
No 166 3.0422 2.54261 0.19734
Lack of proper Yes 134 6.4851 1.60701 0.13882
parental care No 166 6.3012 1.5432 0.11978
255
Anxiety/depression disorder
Lack of Parental care 6.4851
Pampering 2.3806
Rejecting 3.4179
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure 4.44 Showing the Mean scores of children having Anxiety/Depression
disorder behavioural problem in relation to some parenting styles
Interpretation
Table 4.84showing the different dimensions of parenting style of anxiety/depression
behavioural problem children of the primary school. Out of 300 behavioural problem
children, 134 children have anxiety/depression disorder problem. In case of disciplinary
action of the parents of children having anxiety/depression problem, the mean score is
found to be 5.3209. In case of rejecting or neglecting parenting style, the Mean score is
found as 3.4179.The Mean score in relation to lack of cultural/ social value in the family
is found to be 6.6567.On the other in over protective/ conscious parenting style Mean is
calculated as 3.7388.But in pampering parenting style of children having
anxiety/depression problem, the Mean score is found to be as 2.3806. In case of lack of
proper parental care of the children having anxiety/depression behavioural problem, the
Mean score is calculated as 6.4851.Thus it means that lack of proper cultural/social
value in the family is mainly responsible for the development of anxiety/depression
256
disorder problem among the primary school children followed by lack of proper
parental care and improper disciplinary action of the parents.
Thus the presence of children having anxiety/depression disorder behavioural
problem and not having anxiety/depression disorder behavioural problem in relation to
different parenting styles shows the different amount of Mean or average scores. In
order to know the significance of these mean difference of children having and not
having anxiety/depression disorder behavioural problem in relation to different
dimensions of parenting style ‘t’ test is applied. It may help to know the significance of
mean difference of children having anxiety/depression disorder behavioural problem in
relation to different dimensions of parenting style. The summary of this ‘t’ test analysis
Table 4.85 test showing significance of mean difference in anxiety/depression
disorder behavioural problem in different dimensions of parenting style
Different Anxiety/ N Mean Std. Mean Std.Error df t Significance

dimensions of depressio Deviation Difference Difference
parenting style n
disorder
problem
Disciplinary Yes 134 5.3209 1.37431 0.51367 0.18897 298 2.718 0.007*
action No 166 4.8072 1.80543
Rejecting Yes 134 3.4179 1.71372 0.50827 0.20185 298 2.518 0.012*
No 166 2.9096 1.75746
Cultural and Yes 134 6.6567 1.51238 0.21696 0.17271 298 1.256 0.21**
social value No 166 6.4398 1.46659
Over Yes 134 3.7388 2.7528 0.68288 0.30787 298 2.218 0.027*
conscious
Pampering Yes 134 2.3806 2.2337 0.66157 0.27984 298 2.364 0.019*
No 166 3.0422 2.54261
No 166 6.3012 1.5432
*= Significant (at 0.01 level and at 0.05 level)
**= Not significant
257
in relation to different dimensions of parenting style such as lack of cultural/social
value in the family and lack of proper parental care of the parents towards their children
having anxiety/depression behavioural problem are found to be .210, and .315
respectively with df 298 which are not significant .Thus it is implied that there is no
relationship between anxiety/depression disorder behavioural problem and parenting
style such lack of cultural/social value in the family and lack of proper parental care of
the parents. Therefore null hypothesis accepted and it means lack of cultural/social
value in the family and lack of proper parental care of the parents are not determining
factor of anxiety/depression disorder behavioural problem. But the t value calculated
from the distribution in relation to disciplinary action of the parents, rejecting, over
protective/conscious and pampering parenting style of the parents is found to be .007,
.012, .027 and .019 respectively with df 298 which is significant at 0.01 level and 0.05
level. Therefore null hypothesis rejected. Thus it is implies that there is significant
relationship between disciplinary action of the parents, rejecting, over
protective/conscious and pampering style of the parents and anxiety/depression
behavioural problem. It means disciplinary action of the parents, rejecting or neglecting,
over protective/conscious and pampering parenting style of the parents are the
determining factor of anxiety/ depression behavioural problem of primary school
children viz. due to the lack of proper disciplinary action, rejecting or neglecting
parenting style, over protective/conscious and pampering parenting style of the parents,
anxiety/depression behavioural problem occur among the primary school children.
258
Objective 5. To find out the influence of some selected school factors leading to the
Ho4 There is no significant difference in behavioural problems of primary school
children in relation to different school related factors.
The role of the school and its associated different factors in the development of
behavioural problems among the primary school children are also taken into
consideration. After home environment, school is considered as second socializing
agent or factor from which children acquire most of their behaviour for the successful
adoption to the world in childhood. So, table 4.86, 4.88, 4.90, 4.92 and 4.94 showing the
mean score of different behavioural problems of primary school children in relation to
three different dimensions of school-related factors such as – Teachers’ behaviour
towards behaviour problem children, Teachers’ and pupils’ relationship and Peer group
relationship. Table 4.87, 4.89, 4.91, 4.93 and 4.95 showing the significance of ‘t’ test of
different behavioural problems in relation to three dimensions of the school
environment.
259
INATTENTION BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS IN RELATION TO
SOME SELECTED SCHOOL RELATED FACTORS
Different Std. Std. Error

Inattention N Mean
dimensions Deviation Mean
Teachers’ Yes 172 10.8605 2.10909 0.16082
behaviours No 128 10.6094 2.44703 0.21629
Teacher Yes 172 6.1279 1.66699 0.12711
pupil
No 128 6.0469 1.73368 0.15324
relationship
Peer group Yes 172 5.4884 2.07882 0.15851
relationship No 128 5.4063 2.36922 0.20941

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Behaviour Teacher Peergroup
of the pupil relationship
teachers relationship
Figure 4.45 Showing Mean score of the children having inattention behavioural
problem in relation to some school related factors
260
Interpretation
children, 172 children have Inattention behavioural problem. The mean score of
teachers’ behaviour towards inattention behavioural problem children is found to be
10.8605. The mean score of Teacher-pupil relationship is found to be 6.1279 and the
mean score of Peer group relationship is calculated as 5.4884. Thus it means that
improper teacher’s behaviours towards children having inattention behavioural problem
children highly responsible for the development of inattention behavioural problem.
Thus the presence of children having inattention behavioural problem and not
having inattention behavioural problem in relation to different dimensions of school
related factors shows the different amount of Mean or average scores. In order to know
the significance of these mean difference of children having and not having inattention
behavioural problem in relation to different dimensions of school related factors ‘t’ test
is applied. It may help to know the significance of the mean difference of children
having inattention behavioural problem in relation to different dimensions of school
factors. The summary of this ‘t’ test analysis is shown in table 4.87
261
Table 4.87 ‘t’ test showing significance of mean difference in inattention
behavioural problem in different dimensions of school related
factors.
Different Std. Mean Std. Error df t Significance

Inattention N Mean
dimensions Deviation Difference Difference
Teacher Yes 172 10.8605 2.10909 0.25109 0.26373 298 0.952 0.342**
behaviour No 128 10.6094 2.44703
Teacher Yes 172 6.1279 1.66699 0.08103 0.10795 298 0.409 0.683**
pupil
No 128 6.0469 1.73368
relationship
Peer Yes 172 5.4884 2.07882 0.08212 0.25766 298 0.319 0.75**
relationship No 128 5.4063 2.36922
** Not significant
in the dimensions Teachers’ behaviours towards inattention behavioural problem
children, Teachers’ pupil relationship and Peer group relationship are found to be 0.342,
0.683 and 0.75 with df 298 which are not significant at 0.05 level. Thus it is implied that
there is no relationship between inattention behavioural problem and different
dimensions of school related factors such as Teachers’ behaviours towards inattention
behavioural problem children, Teachers’ pupil relationship and Peer group relationship.
Therefore null hypothesis accepted and it safely be concluded that Teachers’ behaviours
towards inattention behavioural problem children, Teachers’ pupil relationship and
influence of Peer group are not the determining factors of inattention behavioural
problem.
262
HYPERACTIVITY BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM IN RELATION
TO SOME SELECTED SCHOOL RELATED FACTORS
Std.
Different Std.
Hyperactivity N Mean Error
dimensions Deviation
Mean
Teachers Yes 124 10.9677 2.0038 0.17995
behaviour No 176 10.6023 2.4168 0.18217
Teachers Yes 124 6.2661 1.65823 0.14891
pupil
No 176 5.9716 1.7119 0.12904
relationship
Peer Yes 124 5.6452 2.06084 0.18507
relation No 176 5.3182 2.29556 0.17303
Hyperactivity Disorder
12 10.9677
10
8
6.2661
5.6452
6
4
2
0

Figure 4.46 Showing Mean scores of the children having Hyperactivity behavioural
263
Interpretation
From the table 4.88 it has been observed that out of 300 identified behavioural
problem children, 124 children have Hyperactivity problem. The mean score of
teachers’ behaviour towards hyperactive behavioural problem children are found to be
10.9677. The mean score of Teacher-pupil relationship is found to be 6.2661 and the
mean score of Peer group relationship is calculated as 5.6452.
Thus the presence of children having hyperactivity behavioural problem and not
having hyperactivity behavioural problem in relation to different dimensions of school
the significance of these mean difference of children having and not having
hyperactivity behavioural problem in relation to different dimensions of school related
factors ‘t’ test is applied. It will help to know the significance of the mean difference of
children having hyperactivity behavioural problem in relation to different dimensions of
school factors. The summary of this ‘t’ test analysis is shown in table 4.89
Table 4.89 ‘t’ test showing significance of mean difference in hyperactivity

behavioural problem in different dimensions of school related
factors.
Different Std. Mean Std. Error df t Remark

Hyperactivity N Mean
Teachers Yes 124 10.9677 2.0038 0.36547 0.26445 298 1.382 0.168**
behaviour No 176 10.6023 2.4168
Teachers Yes 124 6.2661 1.65823 0.29454 0.19814 298 1.487 0.138**
pupil
No 176 5.9716 1.7119
relationship
Peer group Yes 124 5.6452 2.06084 0.32698 0.25814 298 1.267 0.206**
relation No 176 5.3182 2.29556
** Not significant
264
in the dimensions Teachers’ behaviours towards hyperactive behavioural problem
children, Teachers’ pupil relationship and Peer group relationship are found to be 0.168,
0.138 and 0.206 with df 298 which are not significant at 0.05 level. Thus it is implied
that there is no relationship between hyperactive behavioural problem and different
dimensions of school related factors such as Teachers’ behaviours towards hyperactive
behavioural problem children, Teachers’ pupil relationship and Peer group relationship.
Therefore null hypothesis accepted and it safely be concluded that Teachers’ behaviours
towards hyperactive behavioural problem children, Teachers’ pupil relationship and
influence of Peer group are not the determining factors of hyperactive behavioural
problem.

OF MEAN OF CHILDREN HAVING AND NOT HAVING ADHD
BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM IN RELATION TO SOME
SELECTED SCHOOL RELATED FACTORS
Different Std. Std. Error

ADHD N Mean
Dimensions Deviation Mean
Teachers’ Yes 75 10.9467 2.0723 0.23929
behaviour No 225 10.6889 2.31862 0.15457
Teacher Yes 75 6.4 1.69259 0.19544
pupil relation No 225 5.9911 1.68499 0.11233
Peer Yes 75 5.7333 1.83313 0.21167
group relation No 225 5.36 2.31053 0.15404
265
ADHD behavioural problem
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 4.47 showing Mean scores of the children having ADHD behavioural
Interpretation
children,75 children have ADHD problem. The mean score of teachers’ behaviour
towards ADHD behavioural problem children are found to be 10.9467. The mean score
of Teacher pupil relationship is found to be 6.4 and the mean score of Peer group
relationship is calculated as 5.733.
Thus the presence of children having ADHD behavioural problem and
not having ADHD behavioural problem in relation to different dimensions of school
the significance of these mean difference of children having and not having ADHD
behavioural problem in relation to different dimensions of school related factors ‘t’ test
is applied. It will help to know the significance of the mean difference of children
having ADHD behavioural problem in relation to different dimensions of school
factors. The summary of this ‘t’ test analysis is shown in table 4.91
266
Table 4.91 ‘t’ test showing significance of mean difference in ADHD behavioural
problem of children in different dimensions of school related factors.

ADHD N Mean
Teachers Yes 75 10.9467 2.0723 0.25778 0.30133 298 0.855 0.393**
behaviour No 225 10.6889 2.31862
Teachers Yes 75 6.4 1.69259 0.40889 0.22492 298 1.818 0.07**
pupil
No 225 5.9911 1.68499
relationship
Peer group Yes 75 5.7333 1.83313 0.37333 0.29356 298 1.272 0.204**
relation No 225 5.36 2.31053
** Not significant
in the dimensions Teachers’ behaviours towards ADHD behavioural problem children,
Teachers’ pupil relationship and Peer group relationship are found to be 0.393, 0.07 and
0.204 with df 298 which are not significant at 0.05 level. Thus it is implied that there is
no relationship between ADHD behavioural problem and different dimensions of school
related factors such as Teachers’ behaviours towards ADHD behavioural problem
children, Teachers’ pupil relationship and Peer group relationship. Therefore null
hypothesis accepted and it safely be concluded that Teachers’ behaviours towards
ADHD behavioural problem children, Teachers’ pupil relationship and influence of
Peer group are not the determining factors of ADHD behavioural problem.
267
CONDUCT BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM IN RELATION TO
SOME SELECTED SCHOOL RELATED FACTORS
Different Std.
Conduct N Mean Std. Error Mean
Dimensions Deviation
Teachers’ Yes 119 11.0672 2.18132 0.19996
behaviour No 181 10.547 2.29111 0.1703
Teacher Yes 119 6.0672 1.83991 0.16866
pupil
No 181 6.1105 1.59477 0.11854
relationship
Peer group Yes 119 5.4622 2.26914 0.20801
relationship No 181 5.4475 2.16635 0.16102
Conduct Disorder
12 11.0672
10
8
6.0672
5.4622
6
4
2
0
Behaviour of Teacher Peergroup
the teachers pupil relationship
relationship
Figure 4.48 Showing Mean scores of the children having conduct behavioural
problem in relation to some selected school related factors
268
Interpretation
children, 119 children have Conduct problem. The mean score of teachers’ behaviour
towards conduct behavioural problem children are found to be 11.0672. The mean score
of Teacher pupil relationship is found to be 6.0672 and the mean score of Peer group
relationship is calculated as 5.4622.
Thus the presence of children having and not having conduct behavioural
problem in relation to different dimensions of school related factors shows the different
amount of Mean or average scores. In order to know the significance of these mean
difference of children having and not having conduct behavioural problem in relation to
different dimensions of school related factors ‘t’ test is applied. It will help to know the
significance of the mean difference of children having conduct behavioural problem in
relation to different dimensions of school factors. The summary of this ‘t’ test analysis
Table 4.93 ‘t’ test showing significance of mean difference in conduct behavioural
problem of children in different dimensions of school related factors.

Conduct N Mean
Teachers Yes 119 11.0672 2.18132 0.52027 0.26534 298 1.961 0.051*
behaviour No 181 10.547 2.29111
Teachers Yes 119 6.0672 1.83991 0.04327 0.20017 298 0.216 0.829**
pupil
No 181 6.1105 1.59477
relationship
Peer group Yes 119 5.4622 2.26914 0.01467 0.26054 298 0.056 0.955**
relation No 181 5.4475 2.16635
*significant ** Not significant
269
in the dimensions Teachers’ behaviours towards conduct behavioural problem children
is found to be 0.051 with df 298 which is significant at 0.05 level. Thus it is implied that
there is a relationship between conduct behavioural problem and Teachers’ behaviours
towards conduct behavioural problem children. Therefore null hypothesis rejected and it
safely be concluded that Teachers’ behaviours towards conduct behavioural problem
children is the determining factor of conduct behavioural problem. On the other hand t
value calculated from the distribution in the dimensions Teachers’ pupil relationship
and peer group relationship are found to be 0.829 and 0.955 respectively with df 298
which are not significant at 0.05 level. Thus it is implied that there is no relationship
between conduct behavioural problem and some school related factors such as
Teachers’ pupil relationship and peer group relationship. Therefore null hypothesis
accepted and it safely be concluded that Teachers’ pupil relationship and relationship
with peer group are not the determining factors of conduct behavioural problem.
270
ANXIETY/DEPRESSION BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS IN
RELATION TO SOME SELECTED SCHOOL RELATED
FACTORS
Std.
Different Anxiety/ Std.
N Mean Error
Dimensions Depression Deviation
Mean
Teachers Yes 134 10.6791 2.21953 0.19174
behaviour No 166 10.8133 2.2952 0.17814
Teacher Yes 134 6.0821 1.68607 0.14565
pupil
No 166 6.1024 1.70429 0.13228
relation
Peer group Yes 134 5.4328 2.12202 0.18331
relation No 166 5.4699 2.27416 0.17651
Anxiety/Depression disorder
12 10.6791
10
8 6.0821 5.4328
6
4
2
0
Figure 4.49 Showing Mean scores of the children having anxiety/depression
behavioural problem in relation to some school related factors
271
Interpretation
children, 134 children have anxiety/depression problem. The mean score of teachers’
behaviour towards anxiety/depression behavioural problem children is found to be
10.6791. The mean score of Teacher pupil relationship is found to be 6.0821 and the
mean score of Peer group relationship is calculated as 5.4328.
Thus the presence of children having and not having anxiety/depression disorder
behavioural problem in relation to different dimensions of school related factors shows
the different amount of Mean or average scores. In order to know the significance of
these mean difference of children having and not having anxiety/depression behavioural
problem in relation to different dimensions of school related factors ‘t’ test is applied. It
will help to know the significance of the mean difference of children having
hyperactivity behavioural problem in relation to different dimensions of school factors.
The summary of this ‘t’ test analysis is shown in table 4.95
Table 4.95‘t’ test showing significance of mean difference in anxiety/depression

behavioural problem of children in different dimensions of school
related factors.
Different Anxiety/Dep Std. Mean Std. Error df t Remark

N Mean
dimensions ression Deviation Difference Difference
Teachers Yes 134 10.6791 2.21953 0.13415 0.26266 298 0.511 0.61**
behaviour No 166 10.8133 2.2952
Teachers Yes 134 6.0821 1.68607 0.02032 0.19698 298 0.103 0.918**
pupil
No 166 6.1024 1.70429
relationship
Peer group Yes 134 5.4328 2.12202 0.03704 0.25637 298 0.144 0.885**
relation No 166 5.4699 2.27416
** Not significant
272
in the dimensions Teachers’ behaviours towards anxiety/depression behavioural
problem children, Teachers’ pupil relationship and Peer group relationship are found to
be 0.61, 0.918 and 0.885 with df 298 which are not significant at 0.05 level. Thus it is
implied that there is no relationship between anxiety/depression behavioural problem
and different dimensions of school related factors such as Teachers’ behaviours towards
anxiety/depression behaviouralproblem children, Teachers’ pupil relationship and Peer
group relationship. Therefore null hypothesis accepted and it can safely be concluded
that Teachers’ behaviours towards anxiety/depression behavioural problem children,
Teachers’ pupil relationship and influence of Peer group are not the determining factors
of anxiety/depression behavioural problem.
Objective6.To study the academic performance of the children with the existence of
behavioural problems.
Ho5. There is no significant difference in academic performance of children with
relation to the existence of behavioural problems.
Academic achievement or academic performance of the children is an indicator of their
potential, expertise, and success in school activities or tasks. It is considered as a
knowledge obtained or skill developed in the course of academic year usually
designated by scores, marks or grade. Here in this study the result or marks of CCE
(continuous comprehensive evaluation) at the end of the year has been taken into
consideration as academic achievement of the behavioural problem children. To make
the analysis and interpretation of raw data more meaningful and clear the academic
achievement of the behavioural problem children were categorised as low achiever(
273
below 40%), moderate or average achiever( 41-70%) and high achiever(71-100).As the
present study is designed to see the influence of behavioural problems on their academic
achievement. Table 4.96 showing the academic achievement of the behavioural problem
children and table 4.97 showing the significance of academic achievement and existence
of behavioural problems of primary school children.
Table 4.96 Showing the Academic performance of the behavioural problem
children
Academic Behavioural
performance problem children Percent
Low 213 71
Average 63 21
High 24 8
Total 300 100
Academic performances of the behavioural

problems children
250
200
150
100
50
0
Low Average High
Figure 4.50 showing the Academic performances of the behavioural problems
children
274
Interpretation
From the table 4.96 has been observed that out of 300 behavioural problem children 213
i.e. children are low achiever viz. below 40%. 63 i.e. 21% children are average achiever
viz. between 41%-70% and 24 i.e. 8% children are high achiever viz. between 71%-
100%.
Table 4.97 THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCES OF THE BEHAVIOURAL

PROBLEM CHILDREN ALONG WITH THEIR EXISTENCE OF
BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS.
Existence Academic performance
of Problem L Percent A Percent H Percent Total Percent
Single 95 44.6 29 46.03 16 66.67 140 46.67
Double 53 24.88 11 17.46 6 25 70 23.33
Multiple 65 30.52 23 36.51 2 8.33 90 30
Total 213 100 63 100 24 100 300 100
L- Low achiever A-Average achieverH-High achiever
Existence of behavioural problems and

academic achievement of the children
50
40
30
20
10
0
Low Average High
Figure 4.51The academic performances of the behavioural problem

children along with their existence of behavioural problems
275
Interpretation
From the table 4.97 it has been observed that among the 213 low achiever behavioural
problem children 95 i.e. 44.6% children have the single means only one behavioural
problem, 53 i.e. 24.88% children have double means more than one behavioural
problems and 65 i.e. 30.52% children have multiple means more than two behavioural
problems. Among the 63 average achiever behavioural problem children 29 i.e. 46.03%
children have the single behavioural problem, 11 i.e. 17.46% children have double
behavioural problems and 23 i.e. 36.51 % children have multiple behavioural problems.
On the other hand among the 24 high achiever behavioural problem children 16, i.e.
66.67 % children havethesingle behavioural problem, and 6 i.e. 25 % and 2 i.e. 8.33 %
children have double and multiple behavioural problems respectively.
Thus the presence of academic performances of the behavioural problem
children shows different amount of behavioural problems among the primary school
Table 4.98 The Chi-Square value of Academic performances in relation to the
existence of behavioural problems of primary school children
276
Table 4.98 reveals that the Chi-Square value calculated from the distribution is found to
be 0.088 with df 4 which it not significant at 0.05 level. Thus null hypothesis accepted
and it is implied that there is no significant difference in academic performance of
children with relation to the existence of behavioural problems. It means the existence
of behavioural problems is not the determining factor of different academic
performances of the primary school children. In simple words we may say that in any
academic performance holder behavioural problems may occur.
Objective 7. To study the relationship between academic achievement and common
Ho6. There is no significant relationship between Academic performance and common
Table 4.99 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCES OF CHILDREN HAVING
COMMON BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS
Behavioural Problems L Percent A Percent H Percent Total
Inattention 129 75 38 22.09 5 2.9 172
Hyperactivity 83 66.94 31 25 10 8.06 124
ADHD 53 70.67 20 26.67 2 2.66 75
Conduct 84 70.59 24 20.17 11 9.24 119
Anxiety/Depression 103 76.87 23 17.16 8 5.97 134
277
Academic performances of behavioural problems
children
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Low Average High
Figure 4.52 Showing the Academic performances of the children having common
behavioural problems
Interpretation
Table 4.99 reveals that out of 172 children having inattention behavioural problem, 129
i.e. 75% children are the low achiever in academic achievement viz. below 40%, 38 i.e.
22.9% children are the average achiever viz. 41%-70% and 5 i.e.2.9% children are the
high achiever viz. 71%-above. Out of 124 children having hyperactivity problems 83
i.e.66.94% children are the low achiever, 31 i.e. 25% children are the average achiever
and 10 i.e. 8.06% children are the high achiever. Out of 75 children having ADHD
behaviour problems 53 i.e.70.67% children are the low achiever, 20 i.e.27.67% children
are the average achiever and 2 i.e.2,66% children are the high achiever in their
academic performances. In case of children having conduct disorder behaviour
problems out of 119 children 84 i.e. 70.59% children are the low achiever, 24
i.e.20.17% children are the average achiever and 11 i.e.9.14% children are the high
278
achiever. But children having Anxiety/ Depression disorder out of 134 children 103 i.e.
70.87% children are the low achiever, 23 i.e. 17.16% children are the average achiever
and 8 i.e. 5.97% children are the high achiever in their academic achievement.
Thus the presence of behavioural problems in children shows different level of
academic achievement among the primary school children. To confirm the significance
of this difference, Chi-Square test is applied. The result is shown in table 4.100
Table 4.100The Chi-Square values of common behavioural problems of primary
school children in relation to their academic achievement.
Problems Chi-Square df Asymp.Sig.(2-sided) Remark
Inattention 14.209 2 0.001 Significant
Hyperactivity 2.103 2 0.349 not significant
ADHD 5.086 2 0.079 not significant
Conduct 0.451 2 0.798 not significant
Anxiety/ Depression 4.118 2 0.128 not significant
Note-Calculated in SPSS
Table 4.100 reveals that the Chi-Square value for inattention behavioural problem
calculated from the distribution is found to be 0.001 with df 2 which it significant at
0.01 level. Thus null hypothesis rejected and it is implied that inattention behavioural
problems children show poor academic performances or there is a significant
relationship between inattention behavioural problem and academic performances. It
means inattention behavioural problem is the determining factor of poor academic
performance of the primary school children. The Chi-Square value for hyperactivity
279
behavioural problem calculated from the distribution is found to be 0.349 with df 2
which it not significant. Thus null hypothesis accepted and it is implied that
hyperactivity behavioural problem children do not have any relation with the academic
performances. The Chi-Square value for ADHD, conduct and anxiety/depression
disorder behavioural problems calculated from the distribution are found to be 0.079,
0.798 and 0.128 withdf 2 respectively which are not significant at 0.05 level. Thus null
hypothesis accepted and it is implied that children having ADHD, conduct and
Anxiety/Depression disorder behavioural Problems not have any relation with their
academic performances. So, it can safely be concluded that except inattention
behavioural problems there is no any significant relationship between academic
performances and some other behavioural problems such as hyperactivity,ADHD,
conduct disorder and Anxiety/Depression disorder. But there is a significant relation
between academic performance and inattention behaviour problem of primary school
children.
280

13 Chapter4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

13 Chapter4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

analysis of data deals with qualitative as well as quantitative characteristics of the

appropriately analysed and logically interpret. It represents the application of directive

as frequency distribution, simple percentage, average or mean score and graphical

generalizations about the population on the basis of data analysis.Here responses

were systematically classified, tabulated, scientifically analyse, intelligently interpreted

and rationally concluded.

DATA ANALYSIS (Objective wise)

300 behavioural problems children from 20 randomly selected schools in

study. It is generally observed that behavioural problems among primary school

different environmental causes associated with behavioural problem children,

Thus the investigator has formulated the following objective.

classification of causes leading to the problem of behaviour in children. They emerge

from different aspects of behaviour as displayed at home, in school, in society, and in

problems are shown in table 4.1

Table 4.1. THE IDENTIFIED BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS CHILDREN

Total number of Children Identified Children Percent

4149 300 7.23

Identified behavioural problems children

Total no. of Children Identified Children

Figure 4.1. Showing the identified behavioural problem children

school children. The prevalence of common behavioural problems of primary school

children is categorised as Inattention disorder, Hyperactivity disorder, Attention-Deficit

Hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Conduct or oppositional defiant disorder, Anxiety and

Depression disorder. To know the amount of strength and existence of different

table 4.3the existence of different behavioural problems are shown.

Table 4.2 THE PREVALENCE OF COMMON BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS AMONG

Problems Frequencies Percent

Inattention 172 57.3

Hyper activity 124 41.3

Conduct 119 39.7

Anxiety/Depression 134 44.7

Table 4.3THE EXISTENCE OF BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS OF IDENTIFIED

PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN

Existence of behavioural problems No. of Children Percent

Double (D) 70 23.3

Single (S) 140 46.7

Total 300 100

Double Multiple single

Background of the sample

background of the sample. It is very much essential for an investigator to understand

Objective 2- To find out the behavioural problems in relation to the variables –

c) Number of children in the family

d) Birth order of the child among the siblings

Ho1- There is no significant difference in behavioural problems among the primary

school children on the basis of their demographic variables

c) Number of children in the family

d) Birth order of the child among the siblings.

age group with their existence as Single, double and multiple.

TO AGE OF THE CHILDREN

Age group in Existence of behavioural problems Total Percent

years Double(D) Multiple(M) Single(S)

6-7 19(22.35% 26(30.59% 40(47.06%) 85 28.33

8-9 23(20.18%) 41(35.96% 50(43.86%) 114 38

10-11 17(25%) 16(23.53%) 35(51.47%) 68 22.67

12-above 11(33.33%) 7(21.215) 15(45.45%) 33 11

Total 70 90 140 300 100

Behavioural Problems in relation to age of the

6-7 8-9 10-11 12-above

Figure 4.4. Showing the behavioural problems of primary school children in

relation to different age group

problems and 7 i.e. 21.21% children have multiple behavioural problems.

S- Single D-Double *M-Multiple