Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Table 3.1
From the above table we can infer that gender of the respondent is male respondents are
From the above table we can find Age of the Respondent, it is 18-25 years of 5%, 26-30
Yrs of 32.5%, 31-40 Yrs of 25.8%, 41-50 Yrs of 24.2%, 51-60 Yrs of 6.7%, and remaining 5.8%
From the table interpret Education of the Respondent, it like to 7.5% of Illiterate, 38.3%
of High School, 26.7% of Degree, 15.8% of Master Degree, 11.7% of respondents are other
category.
CHART 3.3
Table 3.4
From the table we can find Marital Status of the Respondent it is 40% are married and
From the table discussed Profession of the Respondent is 8.3% of Govt. Employee,
House Wife.
CHART 3.5
TABLE 3.6
From the table interpret Monthly Income of the Respondent, it discussed Upto 10000
earning people are 10.8%, 10000-15000 is 35.8%, 15000-20000 are 30.8%, 20000-25000 are
Status of Usage
From the table discussed Status of Usage the bank, from the respondents point out Less
than 1 Year usage are 10.8%, 35.8% are 1-5 Year, 30.8% of people 5-10 Years, 12.5% are 10-15
Nature of Bank
From the table interpret nature of bank, it is 50.8% of Private bank and 49.2 % of Public
bank used.
CHART 3.8
TABLE 3.9
Attribute of Bank
From the table interpret Attribute of Bank like, Quality of Service is 10.8%, Technology
used35.8%, Trust is 30%, Location is 13.3%, and the Type of Bank is 10%.
CHART 3.9
TABLE 3.10
From the table find New Techniques used in Banking based on Reduce time of
Transaction said 13.3%, Cost effectiveness reason of 37.5%, Ease of use is 32.5%, and the
From the table identified, Computer Usage Level of bank in No Knowledge of Computer
From the table said Computer usage Technology is Connected to internet is 90.8%, User
E-Mail are 34.2%, ATM/Debit card service are 50%, Credit card service and Online Banking are
25.8%, E-payments are 32.5%, and remaining 25.8% of Electronic fund transfer.
Chart 3.12
25.8
Electronic fund transfer
31
32.5
E-payments
39
25.8
Online Banking
31
25.8
Credit card service
31
50.0
ATM/Debit card service
60
34.2
User E-Mail
41
90.8
Connected to internet
109
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency Percent
Table 3.13
From the table discussed about frequency of bank usage, it is ATM usage are 25.8% are
not used, 37.5% are 1-3 times used, 36.7% are 3-8 times used. Then the internet banking usage
of 27.5% are not used, 37.5% are 1-3 times used, 35% are 3-8 times used. Next the telephone
banking usage of 25% are not used, 38.3% are 1-3 times used, and 36.7% are 3-8 times used.
Finally the mobile banking usage are 25% are not used, 39.2% are 1-3 times used, 35.8% are 3-8
times used.
Table 3.14
Level of satisfaction
From the table inferred, level of satisfaction of the respondents are Security for ATMs is
33.3%, Online filling is 47.5%, Protection of banking transaction is 25%, Privacy confidentiality
Level of satisfaction
21.7
Care of collection
26
31.7
Privacy confidentiality
38
25.0
Protection of banking transaction
30
47.5
Online filling
57
33.3
Security for ATMs
40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Frequency Percent
Table 3.15
From the above table discussed about Satisfaction of Technological Service like to
satisfied in 19.2% of respondents, and Not satisfied with 42.5%, and remaining 38.3% of
From the table interpret new technology success of the bank is high level and normally
high in .8%, average of 15%, low of 48.3%, and Not successes in 35%.
Chart 3.16
Table 3.17
Suggestion
S.No on cy nt
1 No 39 32.5
2 Yes 81 67.5
Total 120 100.0
From the table find overall suggestion of the respondents are not give 32.5% and 67.5%
H0: There is no significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “No of Transaction”.
H1: There is significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “No of Transaction”.
Table 3.18
No of Transaction
S.No Nature of Bank
Satisfied Un satisfied Total
1 Private Sector 6 55 61
2 Public Sector 3 56 59
Total 9 111 120
Table 3.19
4.43.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Interpretation:
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association
H0: There is no significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Quality of Notes”.
H1: There is significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Quality of Notes”.
Table 3.20
Quality of Notes
S.No Nature of Bank
Satisfied Un satisfied Total
1 Private Sector 6 55 61
2 Public Sector 6 53 59
Total 12 108 120
Table 3.21
is 5.90.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Interpretation:
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association
H0: There is no significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Conveniently located”.
H1: There is significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Conveniently located”.
Table 3.22
Conveniently located
S.No Nature of Bank
Satisfied Un satisfied Total
1 Private Sector 18 43 61
2 Public Sector 21 38 59
Total 39 81 120
Table 3.23
19.18.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Interpretation:
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association
H0: There is no significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Promptness of card
delivery”.
H1: There is significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Promptness of card
delivery”.
Table 3.24
Table 3.25
19.18.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Interpretation:
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association
H0: There is no significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Account information
and balance”.
H1: There is significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Account information and
balance”.
Table 3.26
Table 3.27
Interpretation:
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association
Table 3.28
E-Payment
S.No Nature of Bank
Satisfied Un satisfied Total
1 Private Sector 58 3 61
2 Public Sector 59 0 59
Total 117 3 120
Table 3.29
Interpretation:
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association
H0: There is no significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Due instalment
Enquiry”.
H1: There is significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Due instalment Enquiry”.
Table 3.30
Table 3.31
Interpretation:
Sin greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject the null
hypothesis. Less than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we reject the null hypothesis.
Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association between Nature of
H0: There is no significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Statement Request”.
H1: There is significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Statement Request”.
Table 3.32
Statement Request
S.No Nature of Bank
Satisfied Un satisfied Total
1 Private Sector 18 43 61
2 Public Sector 11 48 59
Total 29 91 120
Table 3.33
14.26.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Interpretation:
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association
H0: There is no significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Pleasant musical
background”.
H1: There is significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Pleasant musical
background”.
Table 3.34
Table 3.35
Interpretation:
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association
H0: There is no significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Reasonable no of voice
prompts”.
H1: There is significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Reasonable no of voice
prompts”.
Table 3.36
Table 3.37
1.48.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Interpretation:
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association
H0: There is no significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Voice Direction / Online
transaction”.
H1: There is significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Voice Direction / Online
transaction”.
Table 3.38
Table 3.39
Interpretation:
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association
H0: There is no significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Provide attiditional
Options”.
H1: There is significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Provide attiditional
Options”.
Table 3.40
Table 3.41
Interpretation:
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association
H0: There is no significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Reward Point”.
H1: There is significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Reward Point”.
Table 3.42
Reward Point
Nature of Bank
S.No Satisfied Un satisfied Total
1 Private Sector 60 1 61
2 Public Sector 59 0 59
Total 119 1 120
Table 3.43
49.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Interpretation:
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association
H0: There is no significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Prepaid Mobile
recharge”.
H1: There is significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Prepaid Mobile recharge”.
Table 3.44
Table 3.45
Interpretation:
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association
H0: There is no significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “SMS Alert”.
H1: There is significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “SMS Alert”.
Table 3.46
SMS Alert
Nature of Bank
S.NO Satisfied Un satisfied Total
1 Private Sector 58 3 61
2 Public Sector 57 2 59
Total 115 5 120
Table 3.47
Interpretation:
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association
H0: There is no significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Transaction status”.
H1: There is significant relationship between “Nature of Bank” and “Transaction status”.
Table 3.48
Transaction status
S.No Nature of Bank
Satisfied Un satisfied Total
1 Private Sector 53 8 61
2 Public Sector 56 3 59
Total 109 11 120
Table 3.49
Interpretation:
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association
Table 3.50
Expensive
S.No Nature of Bank
Satisfied Un satisfied Total
1 Private Sector 6 61
2 Public Sector 4 55 59
Total 10 110 120
Table 3.51
Since the p-value is greater than our chosen significance level (α = 0.05), we do not reject
the null hypothesis. Rather, we conclude that there is enough evidence to suggest an association