The utility of Summer Institute Efficiency Index (SIEI) is demonstrated using data from evaluation of a summer institute in fish processing. The SIEI worked to 76.16 showing high efficiency rating. The acquisition of skills appears to be independent of coverage and utility perception. The three dimensions of evaluation correlate highly with SIEI

Desai, G.R.

Kaul, P.N.

Prabhu, P.V.

Aquatic Commons

53 
Evaluation of a ummer Institute on 
Fish recessing chnology 
G. R. DESAI, P. N. KAUL and P. V. PRABHU 
Central Institute of Fisheries Technology, Cochin - 682 029 
The utility of Summer Institute Efficiency Index (SIEI) is demonstrated using 
data from evaluation of a summer institute in fish processing. The SIEI worked to 
76.16 showing high efficiency rating. The acquisition of skills appears to be indepen-
dent of coverage and utility perception. The three dimensions of evaluation 
correlate highly with SIEI. 
A lot of expenditure of time, money and 
energy goes into the organisation of Summer 
Institutes organised by the Indian Council of 
Agricultural Research for various person-
nels like, scientists, teachers and technicians. 
A technique for the evaluation of these 
Institutes was developed by Ambastha & 
Singh (1975). A modification of this 
technique in the shape of Summer Insti-
tute Efficiency Index (SIEI) has been sug-
gested by Desai & Kaul (1982). The pre-
sent paper reports the results obtained by 
the use of the SIEI on the evaluation of a 
Summer Institute in fish processing held at 
one of the ICAR institutes during 1978. 
Materials and Methods 
Nineteen participants attending the Sum-
mer Institute drawn from different states of 
the country formed the sample for the study. 
The training was imparted in the following 
broad areas like biochemistry, microbio-
logy, handling, preservation, transporta-
tion, freezing, dehydration and curing, 
quality control relating to fish and fishery 
products apart from application of engine-
ering, statistics and management techniques 
for fish processing. 
Skills were imparted in the estimation of 
proximate composition of fish, spoilage 
indices, bacterial staining, tunnel drying of 
fish, filletting and freezing of fish, canning 
of crab and mussel meat and tuna, prepara-
tion of chitosan, shark fin rays and fish 
soup powder and quality testing of frozen 
and canned prawns. 
Vol. 20, 1983 
A three dimensional rating scale suggested 
by Desai & Kaul (1982) was used to eva-
luate the Summer Institute. A total of 
fourteen items were rated by the partici-
pants for two dimensions such as coverage 
and utility, apart from the 13 skills 1ated 
on the dimension skill acquisition. The 
rating scale was developed on a three point 
continuum for each of the dimensions such 
as coverage (good, fair, poor); utility (very 
useful, useful, not useful); skill acquisition 
(learnt a new skill, a known skill was shar-
pened, nothing new), with a scoring pro-
cedue of 2, 1, 0 respectively for each of the 
items. The maximum possible score to be 
obtained by a participant was 28 each for 
coverage and utility and 26 for skill acquisi-
tion. The SIEI was computed as per Desai 
(1981) and Desai & Kaul (1982). 
The data was collected on an ex-post-
facto design on the concluding day of the 
Summer Institute using a structured sche-
dule. The participants were asked to pro-
vide general information such as age, high-
est educational qualification, experience in 
fish processing or related areas, apart from 
the rating of the summer institute. 
Results and Discussion 
1. Participants' profile 
A perusal of Table 1 brings to focus the 
profile of the participants in the Summer 
Institute. It could be observed from the 
table that in relation to age, majority of the 
partic\pants were in the medium age group, 
54 G. R. DESAI, P. N. KAUL AND P. V. PRABHU 
Table 1. Participants profile 
Sl. No. Variable Categories Frequency Mean SD Range 
1 Age up to 25 ~ l 30.33 6.02 23-43 26-35 36-45 
2 Experience up to 60 months 1~ l in fish 61-120 months 62.17 66 7-186 
processing 
5 r 
More than 
120 months 
3 Education Diploma holders 2 
Graduates 6 
Post-graduates 11 
Table 2. Summer Institute efficiency perception 
Sl. No. Dimensions Total 
score 
1 Coverage 28 
2 Utility 28 
3 Skill acquisition 26 
4 SIEI 100 
A majority of the participants had less than 
five years experience. However, looking 
to the range of experience, it could be 
viewed that the programme also attracted 
participants with more than ten years. 
Concerning education, most of them were 
post-graduates apart from a few graduate 
and diploma holders. 
The overall di~tribution of the partici-
pants indicated that in general the Summer 
Institute provided an opportunity for parti-
cipation to all those interested, irrespective 
of ~heir background characteristics. 
2. Summer Institute efficiency perception 
The information in Table 2, provides 
details relating to the cumulative ratings 
expressed by the participants on the various 
indices computed for the evaluation of the 
Summer' Institute. The SIEI works out 
to 76.16 which may be interpreted as 
about 76% efficiency which is quite high as 
compared to similar other institutes (Desai & 
Kaul, 1981). 
Mean SD Range cv 
score 
19.94 4.62 12-28 23.16 
22.67 4.19 15-28 18.48 
19.83 5.11 9-26 25.76 
76.16 11.16 59.52-100 0.15 
Considering the dimensions of the Summer 
Institute, the participants expressed the view 
as indicated by the mean scores, that the 
utility of the items selected was quite high 
followed by coverage and skill acquisition. 
This inference was also conclusive, looking 
to the values of range, standard deviation 
and the coefficient of variation, which indi-
cated similar pattern. Overall, the 
Summer Institute was found to be efficiently 
conducted as per the requirements of the 
participants. 
3. Inter-correlation among Summer Institute 
dimensions and SIEI 
Table 3 presents the inter correlations 
among the Summer Institute dimensions 
'and SIEI. All the dimensions of the Summer 
Institute studied indicated a positive and 
significant association with the SIEI value. 
Apart from this, the dimension coverage 
indicated a significant positive association 
with utility, whereas skill acquisition had a 
non-significant association with both 
coverage and utility. This leads to the 
FISHERY TECHNOLOGY 
EVALUATION ON FISH PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY 55 
Table 3. Relationship between summer institute dimensions and SIEI 
Sl. no. Coverage Utility Skill acquisition 
1 SIEI 86* 0.54* 0.57* 
2 Coverage 0.53* 0.22 
3 Utility -0.28 
Table 4. Relationship between characteristics of the participants and efficiency perception 
Characteristics Coverage Utility Skill acquisition SIEI 
Age -0.07 0.30 -0.06 -0.33 
Experience in 
fish processing -0.09 -0.17 -0.34 -.0.29 
Table 5. Educational level of the participants and summer institute efficiency perception 
Diploma holders Post-graduates 
and graduates 
Sl. No. Dimensions Mean 
1 Coverage 21.43 
2 Utility 23.71 
3 Skill acquisition 19.57 
4 SIEI 78.83 
fact that skill acquisition needs to be studied 
separately, though SIEI includes this. It 
was suggested earlier that SIEI tends to 
measure in a composite way the various 
dimensions (Desai & Kaul, 1982) and the 
present study bears this out. 
This exhibited relationship, points out 
the fact that skill acquisition is independent 
of the action of other dimensions and hence 
an independent identity. Just by manipula-
ting the coverage or utility the skills acquisi-
tion cannot be controlled, but special empha-
sis has to be placed to impart skills. 
4. Contribution of Summer Institute dimen-
sions to SIEI 
Another attempt was made to test the 
contribution of individual dimensions to the 
overall SIEI by using the multiple regression 
analysis, considering the results in item 3. 
The analysis with SIEI value as a dependant 
variable and the three dimensions as inde-
pendant variables yielded a R 2 of 0.99. 
Though the R 2 seems to be encouraging 
indicating that most of the variation is 
accounted for by the dimension studied, 
in view of the small n, it is necessary to 
Vol. 20, 1983 
SD Mean SD value 
4.76 19.00 4.49 1.09 
4.96 22.00 3.71 0.84 
5.53 20.00 5.10 -0.17 
12.18 74.45 10.70 0.78 
interpret the data with a little caution. For 
this, further replications need to be condu-
cted before concluding the findings. 
5. Relationship between participants chara-
cteristics and Summer Institute efficiency 
perception 
The relationship, between the age and 
experience of the participants and their 
efficiency perception has been depicted in 
Table 4. 
According to the data, neither the age 
nor the experience in fish processing tech-
nology was significantly related to efficiency 
perception, on all the dimensions of the 
summer institute. This clearly points out 
the fact that the efficiency perception of the 
summer institute was not influenced by the 
age or experience of the participants, 
posibly because the training content was 
fairly new to all of them. 
6. Educational level of the participants and 
the Summer Institute efficiency perception 
An enquiry into Table 5, brings out there-
lationship between two educational category 
56 G. R. DESAI, P. N. KAUL AND P. V. PRABHU 
of the programme participants in rela-
tion to their efficiency perception as indi-
cated by 't' test. The result indicate that 
irrespective of their level of education the 
participants tended to exhibit similar mean 
values on all dimensions apart from SIEI, 
which were not significant. This situation 
reinforces that fonnal education has not 
affected the efficiency perception, mainly 
due to the fact that the technologies tailored 
were new, useful and applicable to all of 
them in their setting. This also points out 
that the participants selected were more 
hemophilic in their background needs and 
understanding than in other institutes 
(Desai & Kaul, 1981). 
The authors are grateful to Shri M. K. Kandoran 
and Shri A. K. Kesavan Nair for their help in data 
collection and to the Director, Central Institute of 
Fisheries Technology, Cochin for according per-
mission to publish this paper. 
References 
Ambastha, C. K. & Singh, Y. P. (1975) 
The Haryana Veterinarian, 14, (2), 85-91 
Desai, G. R. (1981) Evaluation Report 
of the Summe1~ Institute on Non-tradi-
tional Diversified Fish Products and 
Byproducts, held at C.I.F.T., Cochin 
from 26th April to 27th May, 1981. 
Unpubl. Report, CIFT, Cochin. 
Desai, G. R. & Kaul, P. N. (1981) Journal 
of Edun. Res. & Extn. 18 (1) 43-50 
Desai, G. R. & Kaul, P. N. (1982) Jour. 
of Edun. & Psy. 29 ( 4) 254-258 
Panse, V. G. & Sukhatme, P. V. (1957) 
Statistical Methods for Agricultural 
Workers, ICAR, New Delhi. 
FISHERY TECHNOLOGY 


Evaluation of a summer institute on fish processing technology

http://aquaticcommons.org/18406/1/FT20.1_053.pdf

Evaluation of a summer institute on fish processing technology

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Aquatic Commons