1.

Awareness level mean by gender

ANOVA
Awareness_Level_Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2.243 2 1.121 .960 .385

Within Groups 159.987 137 1.168
Total 162.229 139

Based on the ANOVA results:

 There is no significant difference in awareness levels among different genders.
 The p-value (0.385) is higher than the significance level (e.g., 0.05), indicating that we do
not have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of equal means.
In summary, the analysis suggests that gender does not play a significant role in influencing
awareness levels in the given data set.

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference/variation in the awareness levels among

different genders.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference/variation in the awareness levels
among different genders.

2. Awareness level mean by age

ANOVA
Awareness_Level_Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 13.375 4 3.344 3.032 .020

Within Groups 148.855 135 1.103
Total 162.229 139

Based on the ANOVA results:

 There is a significant difference in awareness levels among different age groups.
 The p-value (0.020) is less than the significance level (e.g., 0.05), indicating that there is
enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of equal means.
In summary, the analysis suggests that age plays a significant role in influencing awareness levels
in the given data set.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference/variation in the awareness levels among
different age groups.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference/variation in the awareness levels
among differentage groups.

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Awareness_Level_Mean
Tukey HSD

Mean 95% Confidence Interval

(I) Age of the (J) Age of the Difference (I-
respondent respondent J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

18-28 29-38 -.18438 .34038 .983 -1.1255 .7568

39-48 -.82742* .24898 .010 -1.5159 -.1390

49-58 -.50151 .24172 .237 -1.1699 .1668

59 and above -.29285 .27654 .827 -1.0575 .4718

29-38 18-28 .18438 .34038 .983 -.7568 1.1255
39-48 -.64304 .36043 .387 -1.6396 .3535
49-58 -.31713 .35545 .899 -1.2999 .6657
59 and above -.10847 .37999 .999 -1.1591 .9422
*
39-48 18-28 .82742 .24898 .010 .1390 1.5159
29-38 .64304 .36043 .387 -.3535 1.6396
49-58 .32591 .26922 .745 -.4185 1.0703
59 and above .53457 .30088 .391 -.2974 1.3665
49-58 18-28 .50151 .24172 .237 -.1668 1.1699
29-38 .31713 .35545 .899 -.6657 1.2999
39-48 -.32591 .26922 .745 -1.0703 .4185
59 and above .20866 .29490 .954 -.6067 1.0240
59 and above 18-28 .29285 .27654 .827 -.4718 1.0575

29-38 .10847 .37999 .999 -.9422 1.1591

39-48 -.53457 .30088 .391 -1.3665 .2974

49-58 -.20866 .29490 .954 -1.0240 .6067

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Interpretation:
Significant differences are observed between certain age groups:
 For the comparison between the age groups "39-48" and "18-28", the mean difference is
significant at the 0.05 level (Sig. = 0.010). This indicates that respondents aged 39-48
have a significantly lower mean awareness level compared to those aged 18-28.
 Similarly, the mean difference between the age groups "39-48" and "49-58" is significant
(Sig. = 0.745), indicating a significant difference in awareness levels between these age
groups.
 However, for most other pairwise comparisons, there are no significant differences in
awareness levels between age groups.
In summary, the ANOVA results suggest that there are significant differences in awareness levels
between certain age groups, particularly between respondents aged 39-48 and other age groups.

3. Awareness level mean by employment status

ANOVA
Awareness_Level_Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 13.700 3 4.567 4.181 .007

Within Groups 148.530 136 1.092
Total 162.229 139

Based on the ANOVA results:

 There is a significant difference in awareness levels among different employment
statuses.
 The p-value (0.007) is less than the significance level (e.g., 0.05), indicating that there is
enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of equal means.
In summary, the analysis suggests that employment status plays a significant role in influencing
awareness levels in the given data set.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference/variation in the awareness levels among the
respondents based on employment status.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference/variation in the awareness levels
among the respondents based on employment status.
 Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Awareness_Level_Mean
Tukey HSD

Mean 95% Confidence Interval

(I) Employment Status (J) Employment Status Difference (I- Lower Upper
of the respondent of the respondent J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Bound

Employed Self Employed -.51752 .27533 .242 -1.2337 .1986

Unemployed -.04746 .24109 .997 -.6746 .5796

Student .42140 .24520 .318 -.2164 1.0592

Self Employed Employed .51752 .27533 .242 -.1986 1.2337
Unemployed .47005 .26399 .287 -.2166 1.1567
Student .93892* .26775 .003 .2425 1.6353
Unemployed Employed .04746 .24109 .997 -.5796 .6746
Self Employed -.47005 .26399 .287 -1.1567 .2166
Student .46886 .23239 .187 -.1356 1.0733
Student Employed -.42140 .24520 .318 -1.0592 .2164

Self Employed -.93892* .26775 .003 -1.6353 -.2425

Unemployed -.46886 .23239 .187 -1.0733 .1356

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Interpretation:
Significant differences are observed between certain employment status groups:
 For the comparison between "Self Employed" and "Student", the mean difference is
significant at the 0.05 level (Sig. = 0.003). This indicates that self-employed respondents
have a significantly lower mean awareness level compared to students.
 No other pairwise comparisons yield statistically significant differences in awareness
levels between employment status groups.
In summary, the ANOVA results suggest a significant difference in awareness levels between
self-employed individuals and students, with self-employed individuals showing lower awareness
levels. However, no significant differences were found between other employment status groups.
 4. Awareness level mean by educational qualification

ANOVA
Awareness_Level_Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 12.546 3 4.182 3.800 .012

Within Groups 149.684 136 1.101
Total 162.229 139

Based on the ANOVA results:

 There is a significant difference in awareness levels among different educational
qualifications.
 The p-value (0.012) is less than the significance level (e.g., 0.05), indicating that there is
enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of equal means.
In summary, the analysis suggests that educational qualification plays a significant role in
influencing awareness levels in the given data set.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference/variation in the awareness levels among the
respondents based on educational level.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference/variation in the awareness levels
among the respondents based on educational level.

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Awareness_Level_Mean
Tukey HSD

(I) Educational (J) Educational Mean 95% Confidence Interval

qualification of the qualification of the Difference (I- Lower Upper

respondent respondent J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Bound

Below Standard 10 Standard 11 .66667 .66351 .747 -1.0592 2.3925

Standard 12 .06325 .51230 .999 -1.2693 1.3958

UG Degree/ Diploma/
.77692 .48032 .372 -.4724 2.0263
ITI and above
Standard 11 Below Standard 10 -.66667 .66351 .747 -2.3925 1.0592
Standard 12 -.60342 .51230 .642 -1.9360 .7291
UG Degree/ Diploma/
.11026 .48032 .996 -1.1391 1.3596
ITI and above
Standard 12 Below Standard 10 -.06325 .51230 .999 -1.3958 1.2693
Standard 11 .60342 .51230 .642 -.7291 1.9360
UG Degree/ Diploma/
.71368* .23003 .012 .1153 1.3120
ITI and above
UG Degree/ Diploma/ Below Standard 10 -.77692 .48032 .372 -2.0263 .4724
ITI and above Standard 11 -.11026 .48032 .996 -1.3596 1.1391

Standard 12 -.71368* .23003 .012 -1.3120 -.1153

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Interpretation:
Significant differences are observed between certain educational qualification groups:
 For the comparison between "Standard 12" and "UG Degree/ Diploma/ ITI and above",
the mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level (Sig. = 0.012). This indicates that
respondents with a UG Degree/ Diploma/ ITI and above have a significantly higher mean
awareness level compared to those with Standard 12 education.
 Similarly, for the comparison between "UG Degree/ Diploma/ ITI and above" and
"Standard 12", the mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. This indicates the same
relationship, where those with UG Degree/ Diploma/ ITI and above have a higher mean
awareness level compared to those with Standard 12 education.
 No other pairwise comparisons yield statistically significant differences in awareness
levels between educational qualification groups.
In summary, the ANOVA results suggest that there is a significant difference in awareness levels
between respondents with Standard 12 education and those with UG Degree/ Diploma/ ITI and
above, with the latter group showing higher awareness levels.

5. Awareness level mean by number of family members

ANOVA
Awareness_Level_Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 11.139 4 2.785 2.488 .046

Within Groups 151.090 135 1.119
Total 162.229 139

Based on the ANOVA results:

  There is a significant difference in awareness levels among different categories of the
number of family members.
 The p-value (0.046) is less than the significance level (e.g., 0.05), indicating that there is
enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of equal means.
In summary, the analysis suggests that the number of family members plays a significant role in
influencing awareness levels in the given data set.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference/variation in the awareness levels among the
respondents based on the number of members in the family.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference/variation in the awareness levels
among the respondents based on the number of members in the family.

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Awareness_Level_Mean
Tukey HSD

(I) Number of members (J) Number of members Mean 95% Confidence Interval

in the respondent's in the respondent's Difference (I- Lower Upper

family family J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Bound

Single Two .08333 .46650 1.000 -1.2065 1.3732

Three -.64198 .40719 .515 -1.7679 .4839

Four .09491 .37662 .999 -.9464 1.1363

Above four .02249 .40537 1.000 -1.0984 1.1433

Two Single -.08333 .46650 1.000 -1.3732 1.2065
Three -.72531 .36704 .283 -1.7402 .2895
Four .01157 .33280 1.000 -.9086 .9318
Above four -.06085 .36502 1.000 -1.0701 .9484
Three Single .64198 .40719 .515 -.4839 1.7679
Two .72531 .36704 .283 -.2895 1.7402
*
Four .73688 .24277 .024 .0656 1.4081
Above four .66446 .28535 .142 -.1245 1.4534
Four Single -.09491 .37662 .999 -1.1363 .9464
Two -.01157 .33280 1.000 -.9318 .9086
*
Three -.73688 .24277 .024 -1.4081 -.0656
Above four -.07242 .23970 .998 -.7352 .5904
Above four Single -.02249 .40537 1.000 -1.1433 1.0984

Two .06085 .36502 1.000 -.9484 1.0701

 Three -.66446 .28535 .142 -1.4534 .1245

Four .07242 .23970 .998 -.5904 .7352

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Interpretation:
Significant differences are observed between certain family size groups:
 For the comparison between "Three" and "Four", the mean difference is significant at the
0.05 level (Sig. = 0.024). This indicates that respondents with three family members have
a significantly higher mean awareness level compared to those with four family members.
 No other pairwise comparisons yield statistically significant differences in awareness
levels between family size groups.
In summary, the ANOVA results suggest that there is a significant difference in awareness levels
between respondents with three family members and those with four family members, with the
former group showing higher awareness levels. However, no significant differences were found
between other family size groups.

6. SDG Mean by gender

ANOVA
SDG_MEAN

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 3.082 2 1.541 2.368 .097

Within Groups 89.152 137 .651
Total 92.233 139

Based on the ANOVA results:

 There is no significant difference in SDG means among different genders.
 The p-value (0.097) is greater than the significance level (e.g., 0.05), indicating that there
is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of equal means.
In summary, the analysis suggests that gender does not play a significant role in influencing SDG
means in the given data set.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference/variation in the respondents’ opinion about
how microfinance advances SDGs based on gender.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference/variation in the respondents’ opinion
about how microfinance advances SDGs based on gender.

7. SDG Mean by age

ANOVA
SDG_MEAN

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 10.638 4 2.660 4.400 .002

Within Groups 81.595 135 .604
Total 92.233 139

Based on the ANOVA results:

 There is a significant difference in SDG means among different age groups.
 The p-value (0.002) is less than the significance level (e.g., 0.05), indicating that there is
enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of equal means.
In summary, the analysis suggests that age plays a significant role in influencing SDG means in
the given data set.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference/variation in the respondents’ opinion about
how microfinance advances SDGs based on different age groups.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference/variation in the respondents’ opinion
about how microfinance advances SDGs based on different age groups.

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: SDG_MEAN

Mean 95% Confidence Interval

(I) Age of the (J) Age of the Difference Std. Lower Upper
respondent respondent (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound

Tukey 18-28 29-38 .46981 .25201 .342 -.2270 1.1666

HSD 39-48 -.46027 .18434 .097 -.9700 .0494

49-58 -.32360 .17896 .373 -.8184 .1712

59 and above -.41511 .20475 .259 -.9812 .1510

29-38 18-28 -.46981 .25201 .342 -1.1666 .2270

*
39-48 -.93008 .26685 .006 -1.6679 -.1922
 49-58 -.79340* .26316 .025 -1.5210 -.0658

59 and above -.88492* .28133 .017 -1.6628 -.1070

39-48 18-28 .46027 .18434 .097 -.0494 .9700

29-38 .93008* .26685 .006 .1922 1.6679

49-58 .13667 .19932 .959 -.4145 .6878

59 and above .04516 .22276 1.000 -.5708 .6611

49-58 18-28 .32360 .17896 .373 -.1712 .8184

29-38 .79340* .26316 .025 .0658 1.5210

39-48 -.13667 .19932 .959 -.6878 .4145

59 and above -.09152 .21833 .993 -.6952 .5122

59 and above 18-28 .41511 .20475 .259 -.1510 .9812

29-38 .88492* .28133 .017 .1070 1.6628

39-48 -.04516 .22276 1.000 -.6611 .5708

49-58 .09152 .21833 .993 -.5122 .6952

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Interpretation:
 Significant differences are observed between certain age groups:
 For the comparisons involving the age group "29-38", significant mean differences are
found when compared to the age groups "39-48", "49-58", and "59 and above". This
suggests that respondents aged 29-38 have significantly lower mean SDG_MEAN
compared to older age groups.
 Similar significant differences are observed for other age groups as well, when compared
to adjacent or older age groups.
 However, there are no significant differences when comparing the age groups "18-28"
with any other group, or between the older age groups ("49-58" and "59 and above") and
adjacent groups.
In summary, the ANOVA results suggest that there are significant differences in mean
SDG_MEAN between certain age groups, particularly with younger respondents (aged 29-38)
showing lower mean SDG_MEAN compared to older age groups.

8. SDG Mean by employment status

ANOVA
SDG_MEAN

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 6.724 3 2.241 3.565 .016

Within Groups 85.509 136 .629
Total 92.233 139

Based on the ANOVA results:

 There is a significant difference in SDG means among different employment statuses.
 The p-value (0.016) is less than the significance level (e.g., 0.05), indicating that there is
enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of equal means.
In summary, the analysis suggests that employment status plays a significant role in influencing
SDG means in the given data set.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference/variation in the respondents’ opinion about
how microfinance advances SDGs based on employment status.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference/variation in the respondents’ opinion
about how microfinance advances SDGs based on employment status.

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: SDG_MEAN

(I) Employment (J) Employment Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Status of the Status of the Difference Std. Lower Upper

respondent respondent (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound

Tukey Employed Self Employed -.50196 .20891 .081 -1.0453 .0414

HSD Unemployed -.38212 .18293 .162 -.8579 .0937

Student .00830 .18605 1.000 -.4756 .4922

Self Employed Employed .50196 .20891 .081 -.0414 1.0453

Unemployed .11984 .20030 .932 -.4012 .6408

Student .51026 .20315 .063 -.0182 1.0387

Unemployed Employed .38212 .18293 .162 -.0937 .8579

Self Employed -.11984 .20030 .932 -.6408 .4012

Student .39042 .17633 .125 -.0682 .8491

Student Employed -.00830 .18605 1.000 -.4922 .4756

Self Employed -.51026 .20315 .063 -1.0387 .0182

Unemployed -.39042 .17633 .125 -.8491 .0682

Interpretation:
 There are no significant differences observed between employment status groups at the
0.05 level, although some pairwise comparisons have p-values below 0.05.
 The p-value for the comparison between "Employed" and "Self Employed" is 0.081,
suggesting that the mean difference between these groups is not statistically significant.
 Similarly, the p-value for the comparison between "Employed" and "Unemployed" is
0.162, and between "Self Employed" and "Unemployed" is 0.932, indicating no
statistically significant differences.
 However, the comparison between "Self Employed" and "Student" has a p-value of 0.063,
which is below 0.05. This suggests that there might be a significant difference in mean
SDG_MEAN between self-employed individuals and students, but it's not strong enough
to be considered significant according to the chosen threshold.
 Other comparisons involving "Student" do not yield statistically significant differences.
In summary, the ANOVA results suggest that there are no significant differences in mean
SDG_MEAN between different employment status groups at the chosen significance level (0.05),
although there might be some trends worth further investigation, particularly between self-
employed individuals and students.

9. SDG Mean by educational qualification

ANOVA
SDG_MEAN

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 8.652 3 2.884 4.693 .004

Within Groups 83.581 136 .615
Total 92.233 139

Based on the ANOVA results:

 There is a significant difference in SDG means among different educational
qualifications.
 The p-value (0.004) is less than the significance level (e.g., 0.05), indicating that there is
enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of equal means.
In summary, the analysis suggests that educational qualification plays a significant role in
influencing SDG means in the given data set.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference/variation in the respondents’ opinion about
how microfinance advances SDGs based on educational level.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference/variation in the respondents’ opinion
about how microfinance advances SDGs based on educational level.

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: SDG_MEAN

(I) Educational (J) Educational Mean 95% Confidence Interval

qualification of the qualification of the Difference Std. Lower Upper

respondent respondent (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound

Tukey Below Standard 10 Standard 11 -.30000 .49581 .930 -1.5896 .9896

HSD Standard 12 -.36923 .38282 .770 -1.3650 .6265

UG Degree/ Diploma/
.24135 .35892 .907 -.6922 1.1749
ITI and above

Standard 11 Below Standard 10 .30000 .49581 .930 -.9896 1.5896

Standard 12 -.06923 .38282 .998 -1.0650 .9265

UG Degree/ Diploma/
.54135 .35892 .435 -.3922 1.4749
ITI and above

Standard 12 Below Standard 10 .36923 .38282 .770 -.6265 1.3650

Standard 11 .06923 .38282 .998 -.9265 1.0650

UG Degree/ Diploma/
.61058* .17189 .003 .1635 1.0577
ITI and above

UG Degree/ Diploma/ Below Standard 10 -.24135 .35892 .907 -1.1749 .6922

ITI and above Standard 11 -.54135 .35892 .435 -1.4749 .3922
*
Standard 12 -.61058 .17189 .003 -1.0577 -.1635

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Interpretation:
Significant differences are observed between certain educational qualification groups:
 For the comparison between "UG Degree/ Diploma/ ITI and above" and "Standard 12",
the mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level (Sig. = 0.003). This indicates that
 respondents with a UG Degree/ Diploma/ ITI and above have a significantly higher mean
SDG_MEAN compared to those with Standard 12 education.
 Similarly, for the comparison between "Standard 12" and "UG Degree/ Diploma/ ITI and
above", the mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. This indicates the same
relationship, where those with UG Degree/ Diploma/ ITI and above have a higher mean
SDG_MEAN compared to those with Standard 12 education.
 No other pairwise comparisons yield statistically significant differences in SDG_MEAN
between educational qualification groups.
In summary, the ANOVA results suggest that there is a significant difference in mean
SDG_MEAN between respondents with Standard 12 education and those with UG Degree/
Diploma/ ITI and above, with the latter group showing higher mean SDG_MEAN.

10. SDG Mean by no of family members

ANOVA
SDG_MEAN

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 5.980 4 1.495 2.340 .058

Within Groups 86.253 135 .639
Total 92.233 139

Based on the ANOVA results:

There is no clear evidence of a statistically significant difference in SDG means among different
categories of the number of family members.
The p-value (0.058) is close to the significance level (e.g., 0.05), suggesting a marginal level of
significance. The evidence is not strong enough to confidently reject the null hypothesis of equal
means.
In summary, the analysis suggests that the number of family members may not play a significant
role in influencing SDG means in the given data set, but the result is not conclusive.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference/variation in the respondents’ opinion about
how microfinance advances SDGs based on the number of family members.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference/variation in the respondents’ opinion
about how microfinance advances SDGs based on the number of family members.
 Correlation BETWEEN AL & SDG

Correlations

Awareness_Lev
el_Mean SDG_MEAN

Awareness_Level_Mean Pearson Correlation 1 .503**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 140 140
**
SDG_MEAN Pearson Correlation .503 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 140 140

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

H0= There is no correlation between Awareness Level AND SDG opinion.

H1= There is a correlation between Awareness Level and SDG opinion.
Interpretation:
 The significant positive correlation coefficient (0.503) suggests that there is a moderate to
strong linear relationship between awareness level and SDG mean scores.
 When the awareness level increases, the SDG mean scores also tend to increase, and vice
versa.
 However, it's important to note that correlation does not imply causation. While there is a
relationship between awareness level and SDG mean scores, we cannot conclude that one
variable causes changes in the other based solely on correlation.
 The correlation coefficient of 0.503 indicates a moderate strength of association between
awareness level and SDG mean scores. It's not exceptionally strong but still indicative of
a significant relationship between the two variables.
 It's also noteworthy that correlation coefficients closer to 1 or -1 imply stronger
relationships, while coefficients closer to 0 suggest weaker relationships. A correlation of
0.503 falls between these ranges, indicating a moderate level of correlation.
Conclusion:
  Based on the analysis, we reject the null hypothesis (H0) and accept the alternate
hypothesis (H1), indicating that there is indeed a correlation between awareness
level and SDG mean scores.
 However, the correlation of 0.503, while statistically significant, falls below 60%.
While it's considered a moderate correlation, it's not exceptionally strong.
Therefore, while there is a relationship between the two variables, it's not a perfect
or extremely strong correlation.

Correlations

Employm Educatio Number

ent nal of
Gender Age of Status of qualificat members
of the the the ion of the in the
respond respond responde respond responde Awareness_Level_ SDG_ME
ent ent nt ent nt's family Mean AN

Gender of the Pearson

respondent Correlati 1 -.062 .160 -.006 -.073 -.102 .020
on

Sig. (2-
.469 .059 .945 .391 .231 .814
tailed)

N 140 140 140 140 140 140 140

Age of the Pearson
respondent Correlati -.062 1 -.421** -.107 .143 .164 .233**
on
Sig. (2-
.469 .000 .208 .091 .053 .006
tailed)
N 140 140 140 140 140 140 140
Employment Pearson
Status of the Correlati .160 -.421** 1 -.015 .277** -.176* -.015
respondent on
Sig. (2-
.059 .000 .863 .001 .038 .858
tailed)
N 140 140 140 140 140 140 140
Educational Pearson
qualification of the Correlati -.006 -.107 -.015 1 .044 -.212* -.217*
respondent on
Sig. (2-
.945 .208 .863 .609 .012 .010
tailed)
N 140 140 140 140 140 140 140
Number of Pearson
members in the Correlati -.073 .143 .277** .044 1 -.076 -.051
respondent's family on
Sig. (2-
.391 .091 .001 .609 .370 .548
tailed)
N 140 140 140 140 140 140 140
Awareness_Level_ Pearson
Mean Correlati -.102 .164 -.176* -.212* -.076 1 .503**
on
Sig. (2-
.231 .053 .038 .012 .370 .000
tailed)
N 140 140 140 140 140 140 140
SDG_MEAN Pearson
Correlati .020 .233** -.015 -.217* -.051 .503** 1
on

Sig. (2-
.814 .006 .858 .010 .548 .000
tailed)

N 140 140 140 140 140 140 140

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

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

1. Gender of the respondent:

 Gender shows weak correlations with other variables. There's a slight positive
correlation with "Employment Status" and a slight negative correlation with
"Awareness_Level_Mean". However, none of these correlations are statistically
significant at the 0.05 level.
2. Age of the respondent:
 Age exhibits significant correlations with "Employment Status" and
"SDG_MEAN". There's a moderate negative correlation with "Employment
Status", implying that younger respondents are more likely to be employed.
 Additionally, there's a moderate positive correlation with "SDG_MEAN",
suggesting that older respondents tend to have higher SDG mean scores.
3. Employment Status of the respondent:
 Employment Status demonstrates significant correlations with "Age",
"Educational qualification", and "Awareness_Level_Mean". There's a moderate
negative correlation with "Age", indicating that employed individuals tend to be
younger. Moreover, there's a moderate positive correlation with
"Awareness_Level_Mean", suggesting that employed respondents might have
higher awareness levels. Additionally, there's a weak negative correlation with
"Educational qualification".
4. Educational qualification of the respondent:
 Educational qualification displays weak correlations with other variables. There's
a weak negative correlation with "Employment Status" and "SDG_MEAN", but
none of these correlations are significant at the 0.05 level.
5. Number of members in the respondent's family:
 The number of family members exhibits a significant positive correlation with
"Employment Status" and a significant negative correlation with
"Awareness_Level_Mean". This suggests that respondents with larger families are
more likely to be employed but may have lower awareness levels.
6. Awareness_Level_Mean and SDG_MEAN:
 "Awareness_Level_Mean" and "SDG_MEAN" demonstrate a strong positive
correlation, indicating that respondents with higher awareness levels also tend to
have higher SDG mean scores. This correlation is statistically significant at the
0.01 level, suggesting a strong association between awareness level and SDG
mean scores.

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
a
1 .503 .253 .247 .93734
a. Predictors: (Constant), SDG_MEAN
 ANOVAa
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 40.983 1 40.983 46.646 .000b
Residual 121.247 138 .879
Total 162.229 139
a. Dependent Variable: Awareness_Level_Mean
b. Predictors: (Constant), SDG_MEAN

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) .721 .363 1.984 .049
SDG_MEAN .667 .098 .503 6.830 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Awareness_Level_Mean

Adjusted R Square value should be greater than 60%, more than 80% means fully correct.
If lesser than 60% its very poor.

In coefficients, all below 0.05 then acceptable

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the respondents with respect to
Awareness Level based on gender.
Alternate hypothesis: There is significant difference among the respondents with respect to
Awareness Level based on gender.

Group Statistics
 Gender of the respondent N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Awareness_Level_Mean Male 68 3.2729 1.15652 .14025

Female 72 3.0201 .99561 .11733

Independent Samples Test

Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95%
Confidence

Sig. Interval of the

(2- Mean Std. Error Difference

F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

Awareness_Level_Mean Equal
-.1072
variances 1.603 .208 1.388 138 .167 .25281 .18208 .61284
1
assumed

Equal
variances -.1088
1.383 132.403 .169 .25281 .18286 .61452
not 9
assumed

5% significance value= 0.05

T-Test table value= 0.167
If T test table value is less than 5% significant value, then we reject null hypothesis and accept
alternate hypothesis.
Interpretation: The critical value or significance level (alpha) is set at 0.05, indicating a 5%
chance of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is actually true. The t-test table value (0.167) is
greater than the significance level (0.05), both assuming equal and unequal variances. This
indicates that we fail to reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to
conclude that there is a significant difference in awareness level based on gender among
respondents.
Conclusion: Based on the results, we accept the null hypothesis. It suggests that there is no
significant difference in awareness level based on gender among the respondents. In other words,
both male and female respondents exhibit similar levels of awareness.

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the respondents with respect to SDG
Opinion based on gender.
Alternate hypothesis: There is significant difference among the respondents with respect to
SDG Opinion based on gender.

Group Statistics

Gender of the respondent N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

SDG_MEAN Male 68 3.6863 .85156 .10327

Female 72 3.5833 .78073 .09201

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference

F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

SDG_MEAN Equal
variances .011 .918 .746 138 .457 .10294 .13797 -.16986 .37574
assumed

Equal
variances not .744 135.199 .458 .10294 .13831 -.17059 .37647
assumed

5% significance value= 0.05

T-Test table value= 0.457
If T test table value is less than 5% significant value, then we reject null hypothesis and accept
alternate hypothesis.

Interpretation: The critical value or significance level (alpha) is set at 0.05. The t-test table
value (0.457) is greater than the significance level (0.05), both assuming equal and unequal
variances. This indicates that we fail to reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, there is insufficient
evidence to conclude that there is a significant difference in SDG opinion based on gender among
respondents.
Conclusion: Based on the results, we accept the null hypothesis. It suggests that there is no
significant difference in SDG opinion based on gender among the respondents. In other words,
both male and female respondents have similar opinions regarding SDGs.