Manova reporting

Reporting MANOVA: Four examples (not necessarily definitive)

Contents page
Contents page.......................................................................................................................................... i
MANOVA reporting ................................................................................................................................. 1
Example 1: Gender in the future........................................................................................................1
Example 2: NESB teaching practice..................................................................................................1
Examining associations between scale scores and demographic variables................................1
Example 3: ICT ..................................................................................................................................3
Example 4: Internationalisation..........................................................................................................4
Method of Analysis .......................................................................................................................4
Multivariate Effects .......................................................................................................................4
Univariate Effects – Background Variables ..................................................................................6

i


MANOVA reporting
Example 1: Gender in the future
An initial MANOVA examined age and educational literacy as covariates, the three latent
variables as dependent variables (DVs), and gender of baby in survey and gender of
participant as independent variables (IVs). After excluding age and educational level as
nonsignificant, a follow-up MANOVA examined associations between the DVs and IVs
described above. It showed a significant multivariate effect for the three latent variables as a
group in relation to the gender of the baby in the survey (girl versus boy: p<.001) and the
gender of the participant completing the survey (p<.01). However, the interaction between
gender of participant and gender of baby in survey was nonsignificant.
Univariate analyses for the effect of the baby in the survey significant predicted responses
related to consumer trends (p<.05), with responses significantly more positive for girl than
boy babies. Follow-up nonparametric tests for items related to consumer trends indicated that
male and female participants as a group were likely to indicate that baby girls in the future
were not only more likely to follow fashion trends (p<.01) but also to keep up with
technology (p<.01).
Univariate analyses for gender of participant significantly predicted responses related to
consumer trends such that males responded more positively than females and for emerging
lifestyle such that females responded more positively than males. Follow-up nonparametric
tests for items related to consumer trends indicated that despite the significant univariate
effect, the gender of participant did not influence responses to these items significantly.
Follow-up nonparametric tests for items related to emerging lifestyle indicated that females
were more likely to respond that babies of either gender would in future be able to live
anywhere (p<.05).
Example 2: NESB teaching practice
Examining associations between scale scores and demographic variables
A series of multivariate ANOVAs were conducted with six demographic variables as
independent variables, and with intercultural understanding and teaching confidence as
dependent variables. The six independent variables included: years of teaching experience,
teaching sector, training opportunities, linguistic status, cultural groups taught, and
percentage of NESB students in classrooms. Significant associations were examined further
by non-parametric testing (Kruskal-Wallis). Findings revealed nonsignificant associations
between the scale scores for intercultural understanding and four of the six independent
variables, including: Years of teaching experience, type of training; experience working with
different cultural groups; and numbers of NESB students being taught. However, the
interaction between teaching sector and teachers’ linguistic status was significant (Roy’s
largest root=0.039, F (6, 526)=3.413,p<0.05).

1


monoling

3.5
95% CI Cultural proficiency

3.0

2.5

Yrs P-3 Yrs 4-5 Yrs 6-7 Yrs 8-12

TeachArea

Figure 5. Interaction between teaching area and monolingual status

As shown in Figures 5 and 6, univariate testing indicated this interaction to be significant
(F(3,263)=3.34,p<05) such that monolingual teachers of students in Years 4 and 5 appeared
to respond more positively than those in the early years of primary schooling or in secondary
school. In contrast, the differences appeared to be less pronounced for multilingual teachers.
multling

4
95% CI Cultural proficiency

3

2

1

Yrs P-3 Yrs 4-5 Yrs 6-7 Yrs 8-12

TeachArea

Figure 6. Interaction between teaching area and multilingual status

This interaction was examined further by splitting the dataset by linguistic status and
performing MANOVAs for monolingual and multilingual teachers separately. As expected,
the multivariate effect for Teaching status was significant for monolingual but not for
multilingual teachers. The effect of teaching area for monolingual teachers was particularly
pronounced in relation to being able to determine the proficiency of PI students as readers
and writers. Teachers of students in Years 6 and 7 were significantly less likely
( χ 2 = 10.229(3), p < 0.05) than others, especially those working in the first five years of
schooling, to respond positively to the proposal that they were able to determine the English
language proficiency of PI students as readers and writers.

2


A separate MANOVA was used to examine the association between training opportunity
(Preservice, In-service, PostGrad) as IV, and Academic and Cultural confidence as DVs, the
interaction between training opportunities at post-graduate and pre-service levels was
significant (Roy’s Largest Root=0.03, F(2,277)=3.91,p<0.05). Univariate testing found the
effect to be significant for teacher confidence (F(1,278)=7.29,p<0.01). Follow-up testing
indicated that teachers with any type of training opportunity: pre-service, in-service, or
postgraduate training were more confident than those without that training on all three items
representing the factor associated with teachers’ confidence. In addition, those with
postgraduate training only were more confident than those with either pre-service or in-
service training only.
The percentage of NESB students taught by a teacher influenced scores at the multivariate
level (Roy’s Largest Root =0.03, F(2,224)=3.26,p<0.05). The interaction of the percentage of
NESB students taught with the teaching of different cultural groups also influenced scores at
the multivariate level (Roy’s Largest Root =0.06, F(19,225)=2.83,p<0.05)
Univariate testing indicated the effect for Percentage of NESB students
(F(1,225)=6.52,p<0.05) and also the interaction between Percentage of NESB students and
cultural group (F(5,225)=2.83,p<0.05) to be statistically significant. Examination of mean
estimates indicated that students with more than 20% of NESB students in their classroom
were more positive in terms of responses on the scale. The interaction between percentage of
NESB students and teaching of cultural groups is illustrated in the error plot provided in
Figure 5. This figure indicates that teachers of Indigenous students were more confident than
those with fewer such students.
Follow-up nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to examine associations between
percentage of NESB for each of the three items on the teaching confidence scale, and for
each of the six cultural groups. These tests found that teachers with more than 20% of NESB
students in their classroom where Indigenous students were included were significantly more
likely to report confidence in determining PI students’ proficiency as speakers and listeners
(χ2(1)=4.71,p<0.05), and in responding to PI students’ English literacy needs
(χ2(1)=6.18,p<0.05). In addition, teachers with more than 20% of NESB students, where
European students were included, were significantly more likely (p<<0.05) to report
proficiency in responding to PI students as readers and listeners (χ2(1)=5.44,p<0.05) plus
confidence in responding to literacy needs (χ2(1)=6.18,p<0.05).
Example 3: ICT
A MANOVA was used to compare the current and preferred means of male and female
teachers for the two dimensions of ICT use defined by the instrument, namely: (D1) ICT as a
tool for the development of ICT-related skills and the enhancement of curriculum learning
outcomes; and (D2) ICT as an integral component of reforms that change what students learn
and how school is structured and organised.
The multivariate result was significant for gender, Pillai’s Trace = .02, F = 3.50, df = (4,924),
p = .01, indicating a difference in the level of student use of ICT between male and female
teachers. The univariate F tests showed there was a significant difference between males and
females for D1, F = 7.73, df = (1,927), p = .01, and D2, F = 6.59, df = (1,927), p = .01, with
respect to how frequently their students currently use ICT.
However, the F tests for both dimensions on the preferred scale were not significant, F =
1.55, df = (1,927), p = .21 for D1, and F = .00, df = (1,927), p = .99 for D 2. Thus, male and
female teachers were not significantly different in their preferred level of student use of ICT.

3


Table 5 displays the means for male and female teachers for the current and preferred scales
for both dimensions of student ICT use.

Table 5: A comparison of means (with Standard Deviations) for male and female teachers for the two
dimensions of ICT use by students for both the Current and Preferred scales (N = 929)
Teacher Dimension 1 Dimension 2
Dimension 1 Current Dimension 2 Current
Gender Preferred Use 2.75 Preferred Use 2.47
Use 1.97 (0.61)* Use 1.58 (0.54)*
Female (0.62) (0.70)
Male 2.1 (0.60)* 2.81 (0.59) 1.68 (0.56)* 2.47 (0.67)
* indicates significance at p < .05

As can be seen in Table 5, male teachers perceived that their students currently use ICT more
frequently than the students of female teachers for both the curriculum enhancement and
transformation dimensions of ICT use. However, a non-significant result for both dimensions
of the preferred scale indicates that there is no real difference between male and female
teachers with respect to how they’d prefer their students to use ICT.
Example 4: Internationalisation
Method of Analysis
Analyses of the relationship between the IVs, the first three scales of internationalisation, and
the 10 subscales of the affective scales were conducted using MANOVAs. Of the 58 IVs
considered, one to two were entered into the MANOVA at a time, with combinations of IVs
selected such that cell sizes equalled or exceeded 30 (i.e., sufficient cell size to ensure
normalcy of distribution of individual differences). When significant interactions were found,
the file was split by both variables and MANOVAs were conducted with the other variable
and only the significant findings were reported. Whenever Levene’s test for homogeneity of
variance was significant at the p<.01 level (in most cases on one to four of the 13 scales and
subscales), nonparametric statistics (Kruskal-Wallis) were used to confirm the effects
obtained via the MANOVAs. When significant interactions were found on scales for which
Levene’s was significant, the file was split by the significant variable and Kruskal-Wallis was
used to confirm the effects on the other variable. In almost all cases, the Kruskal-Wallis tests
confirmed the findings of the MANOVAs. In those cases, the results of the MANOVAs only
were reported. In cases where significant results were found on one test but not the other,
they were not reported. Because of the large number of IVs and DVs, the consequent number
of significance tests, and the increased likelihood of making a Type I error, only results
significant at the p<.001 level were reported (Abdi, 2007).
Multivariate Effects
Significant multivariate effects were found for the majority of IVs (see Table 24). There were
no significant multivariate effects for major: biological or physical sciences; major: social
sciences, law, criminology, or international studies; and socio-economic status. In addition,
no statistically significant results were found for students who had studied abroad in terms of
the effect of level of school at which they studied abroad, duration, number of study abroad
experiences, or level of immersion. Also, for students who had travelled abroad, no
significant effects were found for travel abroad at any age except 18 and above. Among those
who had travelled to a developing country, only non-significant effects were obtained in
relation to those who had gone for the purposes of work, cultural exchange, or study abroad.

4


Table 24. Significant Multivariate Effects (at p<.001 level)
Variable(s) Pillai’s Trace F df Error df
Country .166 16.735 13 1093
Year at University .073 6.645 13 1093
Country * Year at University .034 2.917 13 1091
University .213 10.036 26 2186
University * Year at University .054 2.318 26 2180
Total Years at University .137 4.035 39 3279
Age .141 6.369 26 2186
Gender .158 15.827 13 1093
Race/Ethnic Group .145 6.569 26 2182
Born out of the Country .086 7.875 13 1093
Second Language Spoken at Home .276 31.994 13 1092
Mother Born Abroad .043 3.729 13 1089
Father Born Abroad .034 2.961 13 1089
Mother Born Abroad * Father Born Abroad .033 2.868 13 1089
Mother’s Education .135 2.327 65 5445
Father’s Education .108 1.831 65 5405
GPA .088 2.006 39 2595
Major: Business, Economics or Hospitality .042 3.682 13 1093
Major: Humanities, Communication, Journalism, or Foreign Languages .061 5.450 13 1093
Major: Education .031 2.720 13 1093
Major: Engineering, Aviation, IT, or Mathematics .052 4.570 13 1093
Major: Health, Human, or Medical Sciences .031 2.656 13 1093
How Often International News Watched on TV or Listened to on Radio .345 10.928 39 3279
How Often Read International News in Newspaper, Magazine, or Online .294 9.138 39 3279
Religion .186 5.531 39 3273
Frequency of Attendance at Religious Services .112 3.246 39 3279
Political Beliefs .341 7.839 52 4368
TV Stations Watched for International News: Australia .297 5.746 39 2043
TV Stations Watched for International News: U.S. .302 2.302 52 1464
International Major .110 10.411 13 1093
Courses with Primarily International Content .158 7.195 26 2186
Courses with Some International Content .162 7.387 26 2184
Participation in Group Projects with International Students .067 6.028 13 1093
Number of International Friends .367 11.693 39 3276
Dated Someone from Another Country .122 11.680 13 1093
Number of International Events Attended in the Past Year .218 6.596 39 3279
Number of International Lecturers or Teaching Assistants .135 2.926 52 4360
Study Abroad .155 15.327 13 1086
Other Travel Abroad .067 6.054 13 1089
Travel to a Developing Country (including only those who had studied or travelled abroad) .082 5.037 13 737
Including only those who had travelled to a developing country:
Purpose of Travel to Developing Country: Lived with Own Family .189 4.967 13 277
Purpose of Travel to Developing Country: Tourism or Military .132 3.232 13 277
Including only those who had travelled abroad:
Other Travel Abroad: Ages 18 and Up .074 4.338 13 707
Other Travel Abroad: Number of Trips .099 1.858 39 2121
Purpose of Other Travel Abroad .208 6.299 26 1414
Duration of Other Travel Abroad .196 2.795 52 2828

5


Univariate Effects – Background Variables
Country. Country was entered into a MANOVA with the DVs. Significant univariate effects
were found on two scales and three subscales such that American students scored
significantly higher on all five (see Table 25). Question-level examinations of differences
were performed for several scales using MANOVAs. On the scale of IB – Academic
Involvement, significant differences were found on both questions. On the scale of IA&P –
Cultural and National Self-Awareness, significant differences were only found for question
17: “It upsets me when migrants or international visitors criticise my country.” On the scale
of IA&P – Cultural Pluralism, significant differences were only found for question 5: “I
prefer to work with students from my own country on groups projects – it makes things
easier.”
Year at university. Year at university was entered into a MANOVA with the DVs. Significant
univariate effects were found for year at university on two scales and three subscales such
that final year students scored significantly higher on all five (see Table 26).

Table 25 Significant Univariate Effects for Country (at p<.001 level)
df 99.9% Confidence Interval
Dependent Variable df F Country Means
error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Australia 18.467 16.115 20.819
Foreign Language Proficiency 1 1105 42.581
U.S. 26.305 23.116 29.495
Knowledge of a Specific Region or Australia 4.897 3.931 5.862
1 1105 18.065
Country U.S. 6.992 5.683 8.301
Australia 15.457 15.120 15.795
IA&P - Cultural Pluralism 1 1105 12.899
U.S. 16.077 15.619 16.535
IA&P – Cultural and National Self- Australia 5.637 5.415 5.859
1 1105 13.156
Awareness U.S. 6.049 5.748 6.350
Australia 5.372 5.143 5.602
IB – Academic Involvement 1 1105 100.087
U.S. 6.546 6.235 6.858

Table 26. Significant Univariate Effects for Year at University (at p<.001 level)
df Year at 99.9% Confidence Interval
Dependent Variable df F Means
error University Lower Bound Upper Bound
Knowledge of a Specific Region or First year 4.655 3.614 5.696
1 1105 21.704
Country Final year 6.860 5.696 8.023
First year .475 .452 .498
International Knowledge 1 1105 47.323
Final year .548 .522 .573
CC Skills – Intercultural First year 21.761 21.318 22.204
1 1105 13.555
Communication and Teamwork Final year 22.502 22.007 22.997
First year 5.571 5.314 5.828
IB – Academic Involvement 1 1105 17.158
Final year 6.055 5.767 6.342
First year 13.319 12.945 13.692
IB – Political Involvement 1 1105 29.331
Final year 14.238 13.820 14.655

6


Interaction between country and year at university. Country and year at university were
entered into a MANOVA. One significant interaction was found on the scale of Knowledge
of a Specific Region or Country (F(1,1103) = 13.948, p<.001). The file was split by country
to examine the interaction. It was found that the improvement for final year students on the
scale of Knowledge of a Specific Region or Country held true only for American students.
The file was then split by year at university and a MANOVA was performed to investigate
the effects for country. It was found that final year American students performed significantly
better than final year Australian students on the scale of Knowledge of a Specific Region or
Country.

Table 27. Significant Univariate Effects for University
Dependent Variable df F University Means
GU 18.467 16.115 20.820
Foreign Language Proficiency 2 1104 21.665 KSU 25.445 20.887 30.003
UCBS 27.131 22.665 31.596
GU 4.897 3.931 5.862
Knowledge of a Specific Region
2 1104 9.534 KSU 7.398 5.527 9.269
or Country
UCBS 6.603 4.770 8.436
GU .515 .494 .537
International Knowledge 2 1104 11.546 KSU .533 .491 .575
UCBS .455 .414 .496
GU 5.637 5.416 5.859
IA&P - Cultural and National
2 1104 8.243 KSU 5.880 5.450 6.309
Self-Awareness
UCBS 6.211 5.790 6.632
GU 21.849 21.440 22.259
CC Skills - Intercultural
2 1104 8.031 KSU 22.932 22.138 23.726
Communication and Teamwork
UCBS 22.151 21.373 22.929
GU 5.372 5.143 5.602
IB – Academic Involvement 2 1104 50.376 KSU 6.466 6.021 6.911
UCBS 6.623 6.187 7.059

University. University was entered into a MANOVA with the DVs. Significant univariate
effects were found on three scales and three subscales (see Table 27). Pairwise comparisons
revealed that for the scales of Foreign Language Proficiency and IB – Academic
Involvement, GU students scored significantly lower than students from both American
universities. Further MANOVAs confirmed that the significant differences in IB – Academic
Involvement held true for both questions. On the scales of
Knowledge of a Specific Region or Country and CC Skills – Intercultural Communication
and Teamwork, GU students scored significantly lower than students from KSU. Question-
level comparisons for CC Skills – Intercultural Communication and Teamwork showed that
KSU students scored significantly higher than GU students on questions 1 (“I have worked
successfully with international students on group projects.”) and 4 (“Sometimes international
students have different communication styles, but we still manage to communicate well.”)
and higher than UCBS students on question 1 as well. On the scale of International
Knowledge, students from UCBS scored significantly lower than students from the other two

7


universities. On the scale of IA&P – Cultural and National Self-Awareness, GU students
scored significantly lower than UCBS students. Question-level analysis showed that
significant differences on this scale were only found on question 17 (It upsets me when
migrants or international visitors criticise my country.)
Interaction between university and year at university. One significant interaction was found
between university and year at university on the scale of Knowledge of a Specific Region or
Country (F(2,1101) = 6.784, p<.001). To examine the interaction, the file was split by
university and a MANOVA was run for year at university. Because GU was the only
university in Australia, these results will be the same as for country and will not be repeated
here. The only significant finding was that final year students from UCBS scored
significantly higher than first year students on the scale of Knowledge of a Specific Region or
Country.
Total years at universityhe t number of years at university was entered into a MANOVA with
the DVs. Significant univariate effects were found for two scales and six subscales (see Table
28). Pairwise comparisons revealed that for Knowledge of a Specific Region or Country,
students with one year or less of university scored significantly lower than those with more
than three of university. On the scales of International Knowledge and IB – Political
Involvement, students with one year or less of university scored significantly lower than all
the other groups. On the subscales of IA&P – Cultural Pluralism, CC Skills – Intercultural
Communication and Teamwork, IB – Academic Involvement, and IB – Intercultural
Curiosity and Involvement students with one year or less of university scored significantly
lower than those students with four or more years of university. Finally, on the subscale of
IA&P – Cultural and National Self-Awareness, students with greater than four years of
university scored significantly higher than those with one year or less or one to three years of
university.
Age. Age was entered into a MANOVA with the DVs. Significant univariate effects were
found on two scales and four subscales (see Table 29). Pairwise comparisons showed that for
the scale of Knowledge of a Specific Region or Country, 16-18 year olds had significantly
lower scores than both of the other age groups. On the scale of International Knowledge, all
three age groups were significantly different from one another. On the subscales of IA&P –
Cultural Pluralism and IB – Political Involvement, students aged 23 and over were
significantly different from both of the other age groups. On the subscales of CC Skills –
Intercultural Communication and Teamwork and IB – Intercultural Curiosity and
Involvement, students aged 23 and over were significantly different than those between the
ages of 16 and 18.

8


Table 28Significant Univariate Effects for Total Years at University
df Total Years at 99.9% Confidence Interval
error University Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 or less 4.046 2.907 5.185
Knowledge of a Specific >1 and < or = 3 5.885 4.123 7.647
3 1103 18.071
Region or Country >3 and < or = 4 6.202 4.319 8.085
>4 8.605 6.868 10.342
1 or less .459 .434 .484
>1 and < or = 3 .528 .489 .567
>3 and < or = 4 .538 .497 .580
>4 .573 .535 .612
1 or less 15.406 15.002 15.810
>1 and < or = 3 15.502 14.877 16.127
IA&P – Cultural Pluralism 3 1103 5.725
>3 and < or = 4 15.913 15.245 16.580
>4 16.270 15.654 16.886
1 or less 5.708 5.442 5.974
IA&P – Cultural and >1 and < or = 3 5.608 5.197 6.019
3 1103 5.721
National Self-Awareness >3 and < or = 4 5.656 5.217 6.095
>4 6.233 5.827 6.638
1 or less 21.712 21.221 22.203
CC Skills – Intercultural >1 and < or = 3 22.081 21.323 22.840
Communication and 3 1103 5.859
Teamwork >3 and < or = 4 22.268 21.457 23.079
>4 22.828 22.080 23.576
1 or less 5.528 5.244 5.812
IB – Academic >1 and < or = 3 5.813 5.373 6.253
3 1103 8.052
Involvement >3 and < or = 4 5.863 5.393 6.334
>4 6.293 5.859 6.727
1 or less 25.146 24.519 25.773
IB – Intercultural >1 and < or = 3 25.967 24.997 26.936
3 1103 5.233
Curiosity and Involvement >3 and < or = 4 26.005 24.969 27.042
>4 26.377 25.421 27.333
1 or less 13.114 12.705 13.523
>1 and < or = 3 13.876 13.242 14.509
IB – Political Involvement 3 1103 18.919
>3 and < or = 4 14.022 13.345 14.699
>4 14.758 14.134 15.383

Gender. Gender was entered into a MANOVA with the DVs. Significant univariate effects
were found for two scales and four subscales (see Table 30) such that males scored
significantly higher than females on the scales of Knowledge of a Specific Region or Country
and International Knowledge and females scored significantly higher than males on the four
affective subscales.

9


Table 29. Significant Univariate Effects for Age (at p<.001 level)
Dependent Variable df F Age Means
16-18 yrs 3.827 2.471 5.183
Knowledge of a Specific Region
2 1104 16.540 19-22 yrs 5.881 4.529 7.233
or Country
23+ yrs 7.083 5.777 8.389
16-18 yrs .444 .415 .473
International Knowledge 2 1104 60.226 19-22 yrs .495 .466 .524
23+ yrs .578 .550 .606
16-18 yrs 15.276 14.801 15.751
IA&P – Cultural Pluralism 2 1104 12.895 19-22 yrs 15.476 15.003 15.950
23+ yrs 16.233 15.775 16.690
16-18 yrs 21.646 21.068 22.224
CC Skills – Intercultural
2 1104 9.971 19-22 yrs 21.898 21.321 22.474
23+ yrs 22.682 22.125 23.239
16-18 yrs 24.997 24.259 25.736
IB – Intercultural Curiosity and
2 1104 9.554 19-22 yrs 25.643 24.906 26.379
Involvement
23+ yrs 26.354 25.643 27.065
16-18 yrs 13.103 12.617 13.589
IB – Political Involvement 2 1104 21.297 19-22 yrs 13.604 13.119 14.088
23+ yrs 14.421 13.953 14.889

Table 30.Significant Univariate Effects for Gender (at p<.001 level)
Dependent Variable df F Gender Means
Knowledge of a Specific Region or Male 7.042 5.630 8.454
1 1105 15.510
Country Female 5.022 4.090 5.954
Male .565 .534 .596
Female .482 .462 .503
IA&P – Global Interdependence and Male 32.223 31.250 33.196
1 1105 14.324
Cooperation Female 33.560 32.918 34.202
Male 15.036 14.545 15.526
IA&P – Cultural Pluralism 1 1105 26.617
Female 15.955 15.631 16.278
IB – Intercultural Curiosity and Male 24.792 24.029 25.554
1 1105 21.324
Involvement Female 26.070 25.567 26.573
Male 5.491 5.169 5.813
IB – Charitable Involvement 1 1105 24.706
Female 6.073 5.860 6.285

10


Table 31. Significant Univariate Effects for Race/Ethnic Group (at p<.001 level)
df Race/Ethnic 99.9% Confidence Interval
Dependent Variable df error F Group Means Lower Bound Upper Bound
Whitea 18.723 16.658 20.788
b
Foreign Language Proficiency 2 1102 46.943 Black 24.677 16.844 32.511
c
Other 34.470 29.451 39.490
a
White 5.080 4.217 5.942
Knowledge of a Specific Region b
2 1102 13.589 Black 6.210 2.940 9.480
or Country
Otherc 8.636 6.540 10.731
a
White .517 .497 .536
b
International Knowledge 2 1102 6.847 Black .453 .379 .527
c
Other .475 .427 .522
a
White 15.511 15.209 15.813
IA&P – Cultural Pluralism 2 1102 8.884 Blackb 16.758 15.612 17.904
c
Other 16.166 15.431 16.900
a
White 21.864 21.498 22.231
CC Skills – Intercultural b
2 1102 10.604 Black 23.274 21.885 24.664
c
Other 22.907 22.017 23.798
a
White 5.684 5.470 5.897
b
IB – Academic Involvement 2 1102 7.502 Black 6.565 5.754 7.375
c
Other 6.033 5.514 6.552
a b
White, European American/Australian, Non-Hispanic Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, Black, or African-
American (all or part) cOther or Multiracial (White + Other)
Race/ethnic group. Race/Ethnic Group was entered into a MANOVA with the DVs.
Significant univariate effects were found on three scales and three subscales (see Table 31).
Pairwise comparisons revealed that the differences on the scale of Foreign Language
Proficiency were due to others scoring significantly higher than both other groups. On the
scales of Knowledge of a Specific Region or Country and CC Skills – Intercultural
Communication and Teamwork, others scored significantly higher than Whites. On the scales
of IA&P - Cultural Pluralism and IB – Academic Involvement, Blacks scored significantly
higher than Whites. On the scale of International Knowledge, none of the pairwise
comparisons were significant at the p<.001 level.

Table 32. Significant Univariate Effects for Born out of the Country (at p<.001 level)
df Born out of the 99.9% Confidence Interval
error Country Lower Bound Upper Bound
Yes 34.168 28.591 39.745
Foreign Language Proficiency 1 1105 66.062
No 19.581 17.592 21.571
Knowledge of a Specific Yes 8.888 6.582 11.194
1 1105 24.422
Region or Country No 5.221 4.398 6.044

Born out of the country. Born out of the country was entered into the MANOVA with the
DVs. Significant univariate effects were found on two scales such that those who were born
abroad had significantly higher scores (see Table 32).

11

Manova reporting

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Manova reporting (20)

Manova reporting