CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

The purpose of data analysis is to prepare data as a model where relationship between
variables can be studied. Analysis of data is made with reference of the objectives of the study and
research question the personal profile of the respondent and effectiveness of the field work
practicum. among social work trainees are found out through data analysis and provided with
suitable interpretation. The collected data is transferred into master sheet using the coded data. The
collected data is analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science). With the help of
SPSS, the simple percentage analysis table and chi-square association between dependent and
independent variable is find out.

39
 TABLE - 4.1

Age of Respondents

SL.NO AGE No. of Respondents PERCENTAGE

1 18-24 33 49.3
2 25-34 27 40.3
3 35-44 6 9.0
4 45-54 1 1.5
TOTAL 67 100

Interpretation:

The results shows that majority of the respondents (49.3%) are aged 18-24, followed by
25-34 years (40.3%).A smaller percentage belongs to the age of 35-44 and 45-54.

40
Figure 4.1 Distribution of Respondents on the basis of age

18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54

41
 TABLE- 4.2

Educational Level of Respondents

SL.N EDUCATION No of Respondents Percentage

O
1 SSLC 3 4.5
2 Plus Two 9 13.4
3 Degree 25 37.3
4 Post Graduation 30 44.8
Total 67 100

Interpretation:

The data indicates that the majority of the respondents 44.8% (30 respondents) have
attained Post Graduation, followed by 37.3% who hold a Degree. A small percentage have SSLC
(4.5%) and Plus Two (13.4%) qualifications.

42
FIGURE 4.2 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BASED ON
EDUCATION LEVEL

SSLC

Plus Two

Degree

Post Graduation

43
 TABLE 4.3

Employment status of Respondents

SL.No Employment Status No of respondents Percentage

1 Student 21 31.3

2 Employed 34 50.7

3 Unemployed 12 17.9

Total 67 100

Interpretation:

The table shows that 50% of respondents are employed, 31.3% are students, and 17.9%
are unemployed. Most respondents are employed, while the fewest are unemployed.

44
FIGURE 4.3 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BASED ON
EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Student
Employed
Unemployed

45
 TABLE 4.4

Marital status of Respondents

Sl.No Marital Status No. of respondents Percentage

1 Single 35 52.2
2 Married 27 40.3
3 Divorced 3 4.5
4 Widowed 2 3.0
Total 67 100.0

Interpretation:

The table shows that the majority of respondents are single (52.2%), followed by
married individuals (40.3%).A smaller proportion are divorced (4.5%) or widowed (3.0%).

46
Figure 4.4. Distribution of Respondents on the basis of Marital Status

Single
Married
Divorced
Widowed

47
 TABLE 4.5.

Childhood Trauma Exposure among Respondents

SL.No Childhood Trauma experience No of Respondents Percentage

1 No 5 7.5
2 Yes 62 92.5
Total 67 100.0

Interpretation:

The table indicates that a majority of respondents (92.5%) reported experiencing

childhood trauma, while only 7.5% did not report any childhood trauma exposure.

48
Figure 4.5.Distribution of Respondents on the basis of their Trauma exposure

No
Yes

49
 TABLE 4.6.

Distribution of Respondents based on Types of trauma they experienced

Types of Childhood No of Percentage

Trauma Respondents
None 4 6.0
Neglect 11 16.4
Emotional Abuse 13 19.4
Sexual Abuse 17 25.4
Physical Abuse 4 6.0
Loss of a Parent 6 9.0
Witnessing Domestic Violence 2 3.0
Others 10 14.9
Total 67 100.0

Interpretation:

The table shows that most respondents experienced sexual (25.4%) and emotional abuse
(19.4%).Neglect (16.4%) and witnessing domestic violence(14.9%) were also reported by many.
A small portion faced physical abuse (9.0%) or loss of a parent (3.0%), while 6.0% reported no
trauma. Overall, most respondents experienced some form of childhood trauma.

50
FIGURE 4.6 Distribution of Respondents on the basis of Type of trauma
experienced

None

Neglect

Emotional Abuse

Sexual Abuse

Physical Abuse

Loss of a Parent

51
 TABLE 4.7.

Distribution of Respondents based how long their trauma lasted

How long Trauma No of Percentage

Lasted Respondents
0 4 6.0
Several Years 27 40.3
Several Months 15 22.4
One Time Event 21 31.3
Total 67 100.0

Interpretation:

The table shows that the majority of respondents (40.3%) experienced trauma lasting several years,
while 31.3% reported a one-time event. A smaller portion experienced trauma for several months
(22.4%) or not at all (6%).

52
Figure 4.7. Distribution of Respondents on the basis of how long did their
trauma lasted

0
Several Years
Several Months
One Time Event
Total

53
 TABLE 4.8.

Distribution of Respondents on the basis of Coping Mechanism Used

Sl.No Coping Mechanism No. of Respondents percentage

1 None 3 4.5
2 Exercise or physical activity 14 20.9
3 Social support 16 23.9
4 Therapy or Counseling 7 10.4
5 Avoidance or Suppression of feelings 11 16.4
6 Substance Use 4 6.0
7 Others 12 17.9
Total 67 100.0

Interpretation:

The table shows that the most common coping mechanism used by respondents was social support
(23.9%), followed by exercise or physical activity (20.9%). Substance use (17.9%) and avoidance
of feelings (16.4%) were also reported by some respondents, while a few did not use any coping
mechanism (4.5%).

54
Figure 4.8 Distribution of Respondents on the basis of coping mechanism used

None

Exercise or physical
activity
Social support

Therapy or Counseling

Avoidance or Suppression
of feelings
Substance Use

55
 TABLE 4.9

Distribution of Respondents on the basis of Trauma impact on Ability to trust

Partners

Sl.No Trauma Impact on Ability to trust No. of Respondents Percentage

Partners
1 No impact 15 22.4
2 Little impact 5 7.5
3 Neutral 12 17.9
4 Somewhat impacted 24 35.8
5 Significantly impacted 11 16.4
Total 67 100.0

Interpretation:

The table shows that 35.8% of respondents reported being somewhat impacted in their ability to
trust partners due to trauma. Additionally, 16.4% were significantly impacted, while 22.4%
experienced no impact.

56
Figure 4.9.Distribution of Respondents on the basis of trauma impact on their
ability to trust their Partners

No impact
Little impact
Neutral
Somewhat impacted
Significantly impacted

57
 LEVEL TABLE -4.10
Level of Childhood Trauma Prevalence among women

Sl.No Level No. of Valid

Respondents Percent
1 Low 4 6.0
2 Moderate 20 29.9
3 High 43 64.2
Total 67 100.0

Interpretation:

The table shows that 64.2% of women experienced high levels of childhood trauma, while 29.9%
reported moderate levels, and only 6.0% had low trauma levels. This indicates a high prevalence
of severe childhood trauma among the respondents.

Figure 4.10 Distribution of Respondents based on level Childhood Trauma

prevalence among women

Low
Moderate
High

58
 LEVEL TABLE 4-11

Distribution Level of Impact of Childhood trauma among the women

SL.No Levels No. Of Respondents Percentage

1 Low 14 20.89
2 Moderate 42 62.68
3 High 11 16.4
Total 67 100.0

Interpretation:

The table indicates that 28.14% of women experienced a moderate impact of

childhood trauma, while 9.38% reported a low impact and 7.37% reported a high impact.
This shows that the moderate level of trauma impact is more common among the
respondents compared to low and high levels.

Figure 4.11 Distribution of Respondents on the basis level of impact of

childhood trauma

Low
Moderate
High

59
 TABLE 4.12

Level of coping mechanism among women

Sl.No Level No. of Percentage

Respondents
1 Low 14 20.89
2 Moderate 19 28.35
3 High 27 40.29
Total 67 100

Interpretation:

The table shows that 40.29% of women have a high level of coping mechanisms,
indicating strong stress management.28.35% of respondents exhibits a moderate coping
level ,while 20.89% show low coping abilities. The majority of women demonstrate
effective coping strategies. However, attention is needed for those with low coping
mechanisms.

Figure 4.12 Distribution of Respondents on the basis of level of coping

mechanisms

Low
Moderate
High

60
 TABLE 4.13

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRAUMA DURATION AND EFFECT OF

COPING MACHANISM

Correlations
Trauma Effect of Coping
Duration mechanisms among
women
Trauma Duration Pearson 1 0.450
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001
N 67 67
Effect of Coping Pearson 0.450 1
mechanisms among Correlation
women Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001
N 67 67

Interpretation:

The table shows a moderate positive correlation (r =0.0450) between trauma duration and
coping mechanisms among women. The p value is 0.001, which is highly significant. This
indicates that as trauma duration increases, coping mechanisms improve significantly.

61
 TABLE 4.14

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREVALENCE OF CHILDHOOD TRAUMA

AND ITS IMPACT

Correlation
Impact of childhood Prevalence
trauma of childhood
trauma
Impact of childhood trauma Pearson 1 .408**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) <.001
N 67 67
Prevalence of childhood trauma Pearson .408** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) <.001
N 67 67

Interpretation:

There is a moderate positive correlation(r=0.0408,p<0.001) between the impact and

prevalence of childhood trauma, which is statistically significant .As the prevalence increases the
impact also tends to increase.

62
 TABLE 4.15

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IMPACT OF TRAUMA AND

EFFECTIVENESS OF COPING MECHANISM

Impact of Effectiveness
childhood of coping
trauma mechanism
Impact of childhood trauma Pearson 1 .373**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .002
N 67 67
Effectiveness of coping mechanism Pearson .373** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .002
N 67 67

Interpretation:

This table shows a significant negative correlation between the impact of childhood trauma
and the effectiveness of coping mechanisms. As the impact of childhood trauma increases
effectiveness of coping mechanism decreases. This relationship is statistically significant.

63
 TABLE 4.16

ANALYSIS OF VARIENCE (ANOVA) BETWEEN MARITAL STATUS

AND TRAUMA EXPOSURE

ANOVA
Trauma Sum of df Mean F Sig.
exposure Squares Square
Between 1.960 18 .109 1.960 .033
Groups
Within Groups 2.667 48 .056
Total 4.627 66

Interpretation:

There is a significant difference in trauma exposure between different marital status groups (F
=1.960, P =0.033). Since the p-value is less than 0.05, marital status has statistically significant
effect on trauma exposure.

64
 TABLE 4.17

ANALYSIS OF VARIENCE (ANOVA) BETWEEN EMPLOYMENT

STATUS AND LEVEL OF TRAUMA EXPOSURE

ANOVA
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Between 27.561 2 13.780 .414 .662
Groups
Within Groups 2127.902 64 33.248
Total 2155.463 66

Interpretation:

The ANOVA result shows that there is no significant difference in trauma exposure based
on employment status .The p-value is 0.0662, this means trauma exposure does not affect the
employment status of respondents.

65
 TABLE 4.18

ANALYSIS OF VARIENCE (ANOVA) BETWEEN TRAUMA EXPOSURE

AND COPING MECHANISMS

ANOVA
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Between 153.233 1 153.233 11.810 .001
Groups
Within Groups 843.394 65 12.975
Total 996.627 66

Interpretation:

The ANOVA result shows a significant difference between trauma exposure and coping
mechanisms. The p-value is 0.001 , This means trauma exposure significantly affects coping
strategies .Individual with different trauma level use different coping mechanisms.

66
 TABLE 4.19

ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TYPE OF TRAUMA AND ITS IMPACT

Type of Low Moderate High Total

trauma
Physical Abuse 0 2 5 7
Emotional 2 4 7 13
Sexual Abuse 5 5 8 18
Neglect 2 4 7 13
Witnessing 1 4 2 7
Domestic
violence
Others 3 2 4 9
Total 13 21 30 67

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymptotic
Significance
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 53.726a 6 <.001
Likelihood Ratio 28.686 6 <.001
Linear-by-Linear 5.163 1 .023
Association
N of Valid Cases 67

Interpretation:

The Chi-square test shows a significant association between type of trauma and its impact.
The likely hood Ratio also confirm the significance (p<.001).The linear-by-linear
association is significant (p=.023),therefore type of trauma significantly influences the
impact experienced.

67
 TABLE 4.20

ASSOCIATION BETWEEN MARITAL STATUS AND TRUSTING

OTHERS

Marital Low Moderate High Total

Status
Single 9 21 6 36
Married 10 10 7 27
Divorced 1 3 0 4
Widowed 0 0 1 1
Total 19 34 14 67

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymptotic
Significance
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 36.455a 28 .131
Likelihood Ratio 35.654 28 .152
Linear-by-Linear .175 1 .676
Association
N of Valid Cases 67

Interpretation:

The Chi-square test shows no significant association between marital status and
trusting others .p=.131 so marital status does not impact levels of trust in this sample.

68
 TABLE 4.21

ANALYSIS OF VARIENCE (ANOVA) BETWEEN LEVEL OF TRUSTING

OTHERS AND TRAUMA IMPACT

ANOVA
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Between 5.686 3 1.895 2.077 .112
Groups
Within Groups 57.478 63 .912
Total 63.164 66

Interpretation:

The ANOVA showed an F-value of 2.077 and a p-value of 0.112. Since the p>0.05, the
result shows not statistically significant. This means trauma impact has no significant effect on
trust levels.

69