SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Reporting a one way repeated measures anova

Download as PPTX, PDF
Ken Plummer, profile picture
Ken Plummer

The document provides guidance on reporting the results of a one-way repeated measures ANOVA in APA style. It includes templates for reporting the main ANOVA results and any post-hoc pairwise comparisons between conditions. Key sections are highlighted to fill in values from an example SPSS output to generate a complete APA-style results section reporting a significant effect of time of season on pizza consumption.

Education
1 of 45
Downloaded 785 times
1
2
3
4
5
6
Most read
7
8
Most read
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Most read
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Reporting a One-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA
Reporting the Study using APA • Note – that the reporting format shown in this learning module is for APA. For other formats consult specific format guides. • It is also recommended to consult the latest APA manual to compare what is described in this learning module with the most updated formats for APA
Reporting the Study using APA • Note – that the reporting format shown in this learning module is for APA. For other formats consult specific format guides. • It is also recommended to consult the latest APA manual to compare what is described in this learning module with the most updated formats for APA
Reporting the Study using APA • Note – that the reporting format shown in this learning module is for APA. For other formats consult specific format guides. • It is also recommended to consult the latest APA manual to compare what is described in this learning module with the most updated formats for APA
Reporting the Study using APA • You can report that you conducted a One-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA by using the template below.
Reporting the Study using APA • You can report that you conducted a One-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA by using the template below. • “A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of (IV)______________ on (DV)_______________ in _________________, __________________, and __________________ conditions.”
Reporting the Study using APA • You can report that you conducted a One-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA by using the template below. • “A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of (IV)______________ on (DV)_______________ in _________________, __________________, and __________________ conditions.” • “A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of (IV) time of eating on (DV) pizza slices consumed, before, during and after the season.”
Reporting Results using APA
Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output
Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant (not a significant) effect of the IV ___________, Wilks’ Lambda = ____, F (____,____) = _____, p = _____.
Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant (not a significant) effect of the IV ___________, Wilks’ Lambda = ____, F (____,____) = _____, p = _____. Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (____,____) = _____, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (____,____) = _____, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2,____) = _____, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2,____) = _____, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2, 6) = _____, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2, 6) = _____, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2, 6) = 128, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2, 6) = 128, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2, 6) = 128, p = .000.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2, 6) = 128, p = .000.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic • Once the blanks are full…you have your report:
Reporting Results using APA There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2, 6) = 128, p = .000.
Reporting Results using APA • Note- if there is a significant difference (which there was in this case) you would also report the pair-wise t results which look like this:
Reporting Results using APA • Note- if there is a significant difference (which there was in this case) you would also report the pair-wise t results which look like this: • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions.
Reporting Results using APA • Note- if there is a significant difference (which there was in this case) you would also report the pair-wise t results which look like this: • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000.
Reporting Results using APA • Note- if there is a significant difference (which there was in this case) you would also report the pair-wise t results which look like this: • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000.
Reporting Results using APA • Note- if there is a significant difference (which there was in this case) you would also report the pair-wise t results which look like this: • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000.
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Before 3.00 .756 8 During 6.25 .707 8 After 1.38 .518 8
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Before 3.00 .756 8 During 6.25 .707 8 After 1.38 .518 8
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Before 3.00 .756 8 During 6.25 .707 8 After 1.38 .518 8
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Before 3.00 .756 8 During 6.25 .707 8 After 1.38 .518 8
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Before 3.00 .756 8 During 6.25 .707 8 After 1.38 .518 8
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Before 3.00 .756 8 During 6.25 .707 8 After 1.38 .518 8
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Before 3.00 .756 8 During 6.25 .707 8 After 1.38 .518 8
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000

More Related Content

PPTX
Reporting a multiple linear regression in apa
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Reporting an ANCOVA
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Reporting a single linear regression in apa
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Reporting a Factorial ANOVA
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Reporting an independent sample t test
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Reporting a paired sample t test
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Echo assesment of rv function
Nizam Uddin
 
PPTX
Reporting Chi Square Test of Independence in APA
Ken Plummer
 
Reporting a multiple linear regression in apa
Ken Plummer
 
Reporting an ANCOVA
Ken Plummer
 
Reporting a single linear regression in apa
Ken Plummer
 
Reporting a Factorial ANOVA
Ken Plummer
 
Reporting an independent sample t test
Ken Plummer
 
Reporting a paired sample t test
Ken Plummer
 
Echo assesment of rv function
Nizam Uddin
 
Reporting Chi Square Test of Independence in APA
Ken Plummer
 

What's hot (20)

PPTX
Reporting a one-way anova
Ken Plummer
 
PDF
Writing up your results – apa style guidelines
Marialena Kostouli
 
PPTX
Reporting Mann Whitney U Test in APA
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Reporting a non parametric Friedman test in APA
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Reporting pearson correlation in apa
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Reporting a paired sample t -test
Amit Sharma
 
PPTX
Reporting an independent sample t- test
Amit Sharma
 
PDF
Reporting statistics in psychology
Reiner-Vinicius
 
PPTX
Repeated Measures ANOVA
Sr Edith Bogue
 
PPTX
Reporting a Kruskal Wallis Test
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Two-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
J P Verma
 
PPTX
What is an ANCOVA?
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Reporting Pearson Correlation Test of Independence in APA
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Sampling in qualitative researc
kavita yadav
 
PPTX
What is a Mann Whitney U?
Ken Plummer
 
PDF
Repeated Measures ANOVA
Kaori Kubo Germano, PhD
 
PPTX
Reporting a multiple linear regression in APA
Amit Sharma
 
PPTX
Reporting point biserial correlation in apa
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Mixed between-within groups ANOVA
Mahsa Farahanynia
 
PPTX
What is a Factorial ANOVA?
Ken Plummer
 
Reporting a one-way anova
Ken Plummer
 
Writing up your results – apa style guidelines
Marialena Kostouli
 
Reporting Mann Whitney U Test in APA
Ken Plummer
 
Reporting a non parametric Friedman test in APA
Ken Plummer
 
Reporting pearson correlation in apa
Ken Plummer
 
Reporting a paired sample t -test
Amit Sharma
 
Reporting an independent sample t- test
Amit Sharma
 
Reporting statistics in psychology
Reiner-Vinicius
 
Repeated Measures ANOVA
Sr Edith Bogue
 
Reporting a Kruskal Wallis Test
Ken Plummer
 
Two-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
J P Verma
 
What is an ANCOVA?
Ken Plummer
 
Reporting Pearson Correlation Test of Independence in APA
Ken Plummer
 
Sampling in qualitative researc
kavita yadav
 
What is a Mann Whitney U?
Ken Plummer
 
Repeated Measures ANOVA
Kaori Kubo Germano, PhD
 
Reporting a multiple linear regression in APA
Amit Sharma
 
Reporting point biserial correlation in apa
Ken Plummer
 
Mixed between-within groups ANOVA
Mahsa Farahanynia
 
What is a Factorial ANOVA?
Ken Plummer
 
Ad

More from Ken Plummer (20)

PPTX
Diff rel gof-fit - jejit - practice (5)
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Learn About Range - Copyright updated
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Inferential vs descriptive tutorial of when to use - Copyright Updated
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Diff rel ind-fit practice - Copyright Updated
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Normal or skewed distributions (inferential) - Copyright updated
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Normal or skewed distributions (descriptive both2) - Copyright updated
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Nature of the data practice - Copyright updated
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Nature of the data (spread) - Copyright updated
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Mode practice 1 - Copyright updated
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Nature of the data (descriptive) - Copyright updated
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Dichotomous or scaled
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Skewed less than 30 (ties)
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Skewed sample size less than 30
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Ordinal (ties)
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Ordinal and nominal
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Relationship covariates
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Relationship nature of data
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Number of variables (predictive)
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Levels of the iv
Ken Plummer
 
PPTX
Independent variables (2)
Ken Plummer
 
Diff rel gof-fit - jejit - practice (5)
Ken Plummer
 
Learn About Range - Copyright updated
Ken Plummer
 
Inferential vs descriptive tutorial of when to use - Copyright Updated
Ken Plummer
 
Diff rel ind-fit practice - Copyright Updated
Ken Plummer
 
Normal or skewed distributions (inferential) - Copyright updated
Ken Plummer
 
Normal or skewed distributions (descriptive both2) - Copyright updated
Ken Plummer
 
Nature of the data practice - Copyright updated
Ken Plummer
 
Nature of the data (spread) - Copyright updated
Ken Plummer
 
Mode practice 1 - Copyright updated
Ken Plummer
 
Nature of the data (descriptive) - Copyright updated
Ken Plummer
 
Dichotomous or scaled
Ken Plummer
 
Skewed less than 30 (ties)
Ken Plummer
 
Skewed sample size less than 30
Ken Plummer
 
Ordinal (ties)
Ken Plummer
 
Ordinal and nominal
Ken Plummer
 
Relationship covariates
Ken Plummer
 
Relationship nature of data
Ken Plummer
 
Number of variables (predictive)
Ken Plummer
 
Levels of the iv
Ken Plummer
 
Independent variables (2)
Ken Plummer
 
Ad

Recently uploaded (20)

PDF
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ 4 KỸ NĂNG TIẾNG ANH 9 GLOBAL SUCCESS - CẢ NĂM - BÁM SÁT FORM Đ...
Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
PDF
Business Ethics Teaching Materials for college
CynthiaCastillo40
 
PDF
TR - Agricultural Crops Production NC III.pdf
avgilmegino3
 
PDF
Insiders guide to clinical Medicine.pdf
AbhishekPatil315128
 
PDF
STATICS OF THE RIGID BODIES Hibbelers.pdf
pascualasturiaskaye4
 
PDF
grade 11-chemistry_fetena_net_5883.pdf teacher guide for all student
banteamlakmebratu738
 
PPTX
Open Quiz Monsoon Mind Game Prelims.pptx
Sourav Kr Podder
 
PDF
The Lost Whites of Pakistan by Jahanzaib Mughal.pdf
jahanzaibmughal6
 
PPTX
human mycosis Human fungal infections are called human mycosis..pptx
shilpa939953
 
PDF
BÀI TẬP TEST BỔ TRỢ THEO TỪNG CHỦ ĐỀ CỦA TỪNG UNIT KÈM BÀI TẬP NGHE - TIẾNG A...
Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
PDF
Abdominal Access Techniques with Prof. Dr. R K Mishra
mohitsuren827
 
PPTX
The Healthy Child – Unit II | Child Health Nursing I | B.Sc Nursing 5th Semester
RAKESH SAJJAN
 
PPTX
master seminar digital applications in india
ananyaray35
 
PPTX
IMMUNITY IMMUNITY refers to protection against infection, and the immune syst...
shilpa939953
 
PDF
Physiotherapy_for_Respiratory_and_Cardiac_Problems WEBBER.pdf
DrMONISHAphysio
 
PPTX
Cell Structure & Organelles in detailed.
DHANASHREESIVAKUMAR
 
PDF
3rd Neelam Sanjeevareddy Memorial Lecture.pdf
Academy of Grassroots Studies and Research of India (AGRASRI)
 
PPTX
Pharmacology of Heart Failure /Pharmacotherapy of CHF
Rajshri Ghogare
 
PPTX
Renaissance Architecture: A Journey from Faith to Humanism
DrMonicaSharma
 
PPTX
Pharma ospi slides which help in ospi learning
rameetkumar304
 
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ 4 KỸ NĂNG TIẾNG ANH 9 GLOBAL SUCCESS - CẢ NĂM - BÁM SÁT FORM Đ...
Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
Business Ethics Teaching Materials for college
CynthiaCastillo40
 
TR - Agricultural Crops Production NC III.pdf
avgilmegino3
 
Insiders guide to clinical Medicine.pdf
AbhishekPatil315128
 
STATICS OF THE RIGID BODIES Hibbelers.pdf
pascualasturiaskaye4
 
grade 11-chemistry_fetena_net_5883.pdf teacher guide for all student
banteamlakmebratu738
 
Open Quiz Monsoon Mind Game Prelims.pptx
Sourav Kr Podder
 
The Lost Whites of Pakistan by Jahanzaib Mughal.pdf
jahanzaibmughal6
 
human mycosis Human fungal infections are called human mycosis..pptx
shilpa939953
 
BÀI TẬP TEST BỔ TRỢ THEO TỪNG CHỦ ĐỀ CỦA TỪNG UNIT KÈM BÀI TẬP NGHE - TIẾNG A...
Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
Abdominal Access Techniques with Prof. Dr. R K Mishra
mohitsuren827
 
The Healthy Child – Unit II | Child Health Nursing I | B.Sc Nursing 5th Semester
RAKESH SAJJAN
 
master seminar digital applications in india
ananyaray35
 
IMMUNITY IMMUNITY refers to protection against infection, and the immune syst...
shilpa939953
 
Physiotherapy_for_Respiratory_and_Cardiac_Problems WEBBER.pdf
DrMONISHAphysio
 
Cell Structure & Organelles in detailed.
DHANASHREESIVAKUMAR
 
3rd Neelam Sanjeevareddy Memorial Lecture.pdf
Academy of Grassroots Studies and Research of India (AGRASRI)
 
Pharmacology of Heart Failure /Pharmacotherapy of CHF
Rajshri Ghogare
 
Renaissance Architecture: A Journey from Faith to Humanism
DrMonicaSharma
 
Pharma ospi slides which help in ospi learning
rameetkumar304
 

Reporting a one way repeated measures anova

  • 1. Reporting a One-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA
  • 2. Reporting the Study using APA • Note – that the reporting format shown in this learning module is for APA. For other formats consult specific format guides. • It is also recommended to consult the latest APA manual to compare what is described in this learning module with the most updated formats for APA
  • 3. Reporting the Study using APA • Note – that the reporting format shown in this learning module is for APA. For other formats consult specific format guides. • It is also recommended to consult the latest APA manual to compare what is described in this learning module with the most updated formats for APA
  • 4. Reporting the Study using APA • Note – that the reporting format shown in this learning module is for APA. For other formats consult specific format guides. • It is also recommended to consult the latest APA manual to compare what is described in this learning module with the most updated formats for APA
  • 5. Reporting the Study using APA • You can report that you conducted a One-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA by using the template below.
  • 6. Reporting the Study using APA • You can report that you conducted a One-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA by using the template below. • “A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of (IV)______________ on (DV)_______________ in _________________, __________________, and __________________ conditions.”
  • 7. Reporting the Study using APA • You can report that you conducted a One-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA by using the template below. • “A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of (IV)______________ on (DV)_______________ in _________________, __________________, and __________________ conditions.” • “A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of (IV) time of eating on (DV) pizza slices consumed, before, during and after the season.”
  • 9. Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output
  • 10. Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant (not a significant) effect of the IV ___________, Wilks’ Lambda = ____, F (____,____) = _____, p = _____.
  • 11. Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant (not a significant) effect of the IV ___________, Wilks’ Lambda = ____, F (____,____) = _____, p = _____. Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
  • 12. Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (____,____) = _____, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
  • 13. Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (____,____) = _____, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
  • 14. Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2,____) = _____, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
  • 15. Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2,____) = _____, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
  • 16. Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2, 6) = _____, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
  • 17. Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2, 6) = _____, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
  • 18. Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2, 6) = 128, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
  • 19. Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2, 6) = 128, p = _____.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
  • 20. Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2, 6) = 128, p = .000.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic
  • 21. Reporting Results using APA • Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output • “There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2, 6) = 128, p = .000.” Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Time_eating Pillai's Trace .977 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .023 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 42.677 128.030b 2.000 6.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Time_eating b. Exact statistic • Once the blanks are full…you have your report:
  • 22. Reporting Results using APA There was a significant effect of time of season on eating pizza, Wilks’ Lambda = .023, F (2, 6) = 128, p = .000.
  • 23. Reporting Results using APA • Note- if there is a significant difference (which there was in this case) you would also report the pair-wise t results which look like this:
  • 24. Reporting Results using APA • Note- if there is a significant difference (which there was in this case) you would also report the pair-wise t results which look like this: • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions.
  • 25. Reporting Results using APA • Note- if there is a significant difference (which there was in this case) you would also report the pair-wise t results which look like this: • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000.
  • 26. Reporting Results using APA • Note- if there is a significant difference (which there was in this case) you would also report the pair-wise t results which look like this: • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000.
  • 27. Reporting Results using APA • Note- if there is a significant difference (which there was in this case) you would also report the pair-wise t results which look like this: • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000.
  • 28. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Before 3.00 .756 8 During 6.25 .707 8 After 1.38 .518 8
  • 29. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Before 3.00 .756 8 During 6.25 .707 8 After 1.38 .518 8
  • 30. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Before 3.00 .756 8 During 6.25 .707 8 After 1.38 .518 8
  • 31. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Before 3.00 .756 8 During 6.25 .707 8 After 1.38 .518 8
  • 32. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Before 3.00 .756 8 During 6.25 .707 8 After 1.38 .518 8
  • 33. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Before 3.00 .756 8 During 6.25 .707 8 After 1.38 .518 8
  • 34. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= 6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Before 3.00 .756 8 During 6.25 .707 8 After 1.38 .518 8
  • 35. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
  • 36. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
  • 37. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
  • 38. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
  • 39. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
  • 40. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
  • 41. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
  • 42. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
  • 43. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
  • 44. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000
  • 45. Reporting Results using APA • Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) the season; t(7)= -6.62, p = .000. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten during (M= 6.3, SD=.71) and after (M =1.4, SD=.52) the season; t(7)= 13.91, p = .000. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the number of pizza slices eaten before (M=3.0, SD=.76) and after (M =1.4, SD=.518) the season; t(7)= 6.18, p = .000. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 Before - During -3.250 1.389 .491 -4.411 -2.089 -6.619 7 .000 Pair 2 During - After 4.875 .991 .350 4.046 5.704 13.913 7 .000 Pair 3 Before - After 1.625 .744 .263 1.003 2.247 6.177 7 .000