SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 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

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Running & Reporting an One-way ANCOVA in SPSS
Running & Reporting an One-way ANCOVA in SPSSRunning & Reporting an One-way ANCOVA in SPSS
Running & Reporting an One-way ANCOVA in SPSSKen Plummer
 
Mixed between-within groups ANOVA
Mixed between-within groups ANOVAMixed between-within groups ANOVA
Mixed between-within groups ANOVAMahsa Farahanynia
 
Reporting point biserial correlation in apa
Reporting point biserial correlation in apaReporting point biserial correlation in apa
Reporting point biserial correlation in apaKen Plummer
 
Reporting Pearson Correlation Test of Independence in APA
Reporting Pearson Correlation Test of Independence in APAReporting Pearson Correlation Test of Independence in APA
Reporting Pearson Correlation Test of Independence in APAKen Plummer
 
Reporting a partial correlation in apa
Reporting a partial correlation in apaReporting a partial correlation in apa
Reporting a partial correlation in apaKen Plummer
 
Reporting a one way ANOVA
Reporting a one way ANOVAReporting a one way ANOVA
Reporting a one way ANOVAAmit Sharma
 
Reporting a multiple linear regression in apa
Reporting a multiple linear regression in apaReporting a multiple linear regression in apa
Reporting a multiple linear regression in apaKen Plummer
 
Reporting Mann Whitney U Test in APA
Reporting Mann Whitney U Test in APAReporting Mann Whitney U Test in APA
Reporting Mann Whitney U Test in APAKen Plummer
 
Reporting a non parametric Friedman test in APA
Reporting a non parametric Friedman test in APAReporting a non parametric Friedman test in APA
Reporting a non parametric Friedman test in APAKen Plummer
 
Reporting a single sample t test
Reporting a single sample t testReporting a single sample t test
Reporting a single sample t testKen Plummer
 
Two-way Mixed Design with SPSS
Two-way Mixed Design with SPSSTwo-way Mixed Design with SPSS
Two-way Mixed Design with SPSSJ P Verma
 
Reporting a paired sample t test
Reporting a paired sample t testReporting a paired sample t test
Reporting a paired sample t testKen Plummer
 
Reporting a Kruskal Wallis Test
Reporting a Kruskal Wallis TestReporting a Kruskal Wallis Test
Reporting a Kruskal Wallis TestKen Plummer
 
Reporting the wilcoxon signed ranks test
Reporting the wilcoxon signed ranks testReporting the wilcoxon signed ranks test
Reporting the wilcoxon signed ranks testKen Plummer
 
Two-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
Two-way Repeated Measures ANOVATwo-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
Two-way Repeated Measures ANOVAJ P Verma
 
Reporting chi square goodness of fit test of independence in apa
Reporting chi square goodness of fit test of independence in apaReporting chi square goodness of fit test of independence in apa
Reporting chi square goodness of fit test of independence in apaKen Plummer
 
Multiple Linear Regression II and ANOVA I
Multiple Linear Regression II and ANOVA IMultiple Linear Regression II and ANOVA I
Multiple Linear Regression II and ANOVA IJames Neill
 
Reporting spearman rho in apa
Reporting spearman rho in apaReporting spearman rho in apa
Reporting spearman rho in apaKen Plummer
 
Reporting an independent sample t test
Reporting an independent sample t testReporting an independent sample t test
Reporting an independent sample t testKen Plummer
 

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Running & Reporting an One-way ANCOVA in SPSS
Running & Reporting an One-way ANCOVA in SPSSRunning & Reporting an One-way ANCOVA in SPSS
Running & Reporting an One-way ANCOVA in SPSS
 
Mixed between-within groups ANOVA
Mixed between-within groups ANOVAMixed between-within groups ANOVA
Mixed between-within groups ANOVA
 
Reporting point biserial correlation in apa
Reporting point biserial correlation in apaReporting point biserial correlation in apa
Reporting point biserial correlation in apa
 
Reporting Pearson Correlation Test of Independence in APA
Reporting Pearson Correlation Test of Independence in APAReporting Pearson Correlation Test of Independence in APA
Reporting Pearson Correlation Test of Independence in APA
 
Reporting a partial correlation in apa
Reporting a partial correlation in apaReporting a partial correlation in apa
Reporting a partial correlation in apa
 
Reporting a one way ANOVA
Reporting a one way ANOVAReporting a one way ANOVA
Reporting a one way ANOVA
 
Reporting a multiple linear regression in apa
Reporting a multiple linear regression in apaReporting a multiple linear regression in apa
Reporting a multiple linear regression in apa
 
Reporting Mann Whitney U Test in APA
Reporting Mann Whitney U Test in APAReporting Mann Whitney U Test in APA
Reporting Mann Whitney U Test in APA
 
Reporting a non parametric Friedman test in APA
Reporting a non parametric Friedman test in APAReporting a non parametric Friedman test in APA
Reporting a non parametric Friedman test in APA
 
Reporting a single sample t test
Reporting a single sample t testReporting a single sample t test
Reporting a single sample t test
 
Two-way Mixed Design with SPSS
Two-way Mixed Design with SPSSTwo-way Mixed Design with SPSS
Two-way Mixed Design with SPSS
 
Reporting a paired sample t test
Reporting a paired sample t testReporting a paired sample t test
Reporting a paired sample t test
 
Reporting a Kruskal Wallis Test
Reporting a Kruskal Wallis TestReporting a Kruskal Wallis Test
Reporting a Kruskal Wallis Test
 
ANOVA II
ANOVA IIANOVA II
ANOVA II
 
Reporting the wilcoxon signed ranks test
Reporting the wilcoxon signed ranks testReporting the wilcoxon signed ranks test
Reporting the wilcoxon signed ranks test
 
Two-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
Two-way Repeated Measures ANOVATwo-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
Two-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
 
Reporting chi square goodness of fit test of independence in apa
Reporting chi square goodness of fit test of independence in apaReporting chi square goodness of fit test of independence in apa
Reporting chi square goodness of fit test of independence in apa
 
Multiple Linear Regression II and ANOVA I
Multiple Linear Regression II and ANOVA IMultiple Linear Regression II and ANOVA I
Multiple Linear Regression II and ANOVA I
 
Reporting spearman rho in apa
Reporting spearman rho in apaReporting spearman rho in apa
Reporting spearman rho in apa
 
Reporting an independent sample t test
Reporting an independent sample t testReporting an independent sample t test
Reporting an independent sample t test
 

Mehr von Ken Plummer

Diff rel gof-fit - jejit - practice (5)
Diff rel gof-fit - jejit - practice (5)Diff rel gof-fit - jejit - practice (5)
Diff rel gof-fit - jejit - practice (5)Ken Plummer
 
Learn About Range - Copyright updated
Learn About Range - Copyright updatedLearn About Range - Copyright updated
Learn About Range - Copyright updatedKen Plummer
 
Inferential vs descriptive tutorial of when to use - Copyright Updated
Inferential vs descriptive tutorial of when to use - Copyright UpdatedInferential vs descriptive tutorial of when to use - Copyright Updated
Inferential vs descriptive tutorial of when to use - Copyright UpdatedKen Plummer
 
Diff rel ind-fit practice - Copyright Updated
Diff rel ind-fit practice - Copyright UpdatedDiff rel ind-fit practice - Copyright Updated
Diff rel ind-fit practice - Copyright UpdatedKen Plummer
 
Normal or skewed distributions (inferential) - Copyright updated
Normal or skewed distributions (inferential) - Copyright updatedNormal or skewed distributions (inferential) - Copyright updated
Normal or skewed distributions (inferential) - Copyright updatedKen Plummer
 
Normal or skewed distributions (descriptive both2) - Copyright updated
Normal or skewed distributions (descriptive both2) - Copyright updatedNormal or skewed distributions (descriptive both2) - Copyright updated
Normal or skewed distributions (descriptive both2) - Copyright updatedKen Plummer
 
Nature of the data practice - Copyright updated
Nature of the data practice - Copyright updatedNature of the data practice - Copyright updated
Nature of the data practice - Copyright updatedKen Plummer
 
Nature of the data (spread) - Copyright updated
Nature of the data (spread) - Copyright updatedNature of the data (spread) - Copyright updated
Nature of the data (spread) - Copyright updatedKen Plummer
 
Mode practice 1 - Copyright updated
Mode practice 1 - Copyright updatedMode practice 1 - Copyright updated
Mode practice 1 - Copyright updatedKen Plummer
 
Nature of the data (descriptive) - Copyright updated
Nature of the data (descriptive) - Copyright updatedNature of the data (descriptive) - Copyright updated
Nature of the data (descriptive) - Copyright updatedKen Plummer
 
Dichotomous or scaled
Dichotomous or scaledDichotomous or scaled
Dichotomous or scaledKen Plummer
 
Skewed less than 30 (ties)
Skewed less than 30 (ties)Skewed less than 30 (ties)
Skewed less than 30 (ties)Ken Plummer
 
Skewed sample size less than 30
Skewed sample size less than 30Skewed sample size less than 30
Skewed sample size less than 30Ken Plummer
 
Ordinal (ties)
Ordinal (ties)Ordinal (ties)
Ordinal (ties)Ken Plummer
 
Ordinal and nominal
Ordinal and nominalOrdinal and nominal
Ordinal and nominalKen Plummer
 
Relationship covariates
Relationship   covariatesRelationship   covariates
Relationship covariatesKen Plummer
 
Relationship nature of data
Relationship nature of dataRelationship nature of data
Relationship nature of dataKen Plummer
 
Number of variables (predictive)
Number of variables (predictive)Number of variables (predictive)
Number of variables (predictive)Ken Plummer
 
Levels of the iv
Levels of the ivLevels of the iv
Levels of the ivKen Plummer
 
Independent variables (2)
Independent variables (2)Independent variables (2)
Independent variables (2)Ken Plummer
 

Mehr von Ken Plummer (20)

Diff rel gof-fit - jejit - practice (5)
Diff rel gof-fit - jejit - practice (5)Diff rel gof-fit - jejit - practice (5)
Diff rel gof-fit - jejit - practice (5)
 
Learn About Range - Copyright updated
Learn About Range - Copyright updatedLearn About Range - Copyright updated
Learn About Range - Copyright updated
 
Inferential vs descriptive tutorial of when to use - Copyright Updated
Inferential vs descriptive tutorial of when to use - Copyright UpdatedInferential vs descriptive tutorial of when to use - Copyright Updated
Inferential vs descriptive tutorial of when to use - Copyright Updated
 
Diff rel ind-fit practice - Copyright Updated
Diff rel ind-fit practice - Copyright UpdatedDiff rel ind-fit practice - Copyright Updated
Diff rel ind-fit practice - Copyright Updated
 
Normal or skewed distributions (inferential) - Copyright updated
Normal or skewed distributions (inferential) - Copyright updatedNormal or skewed distributions (inferential) - Copyright updated
Normal or skewed distributions (inferential) - Copyright updated
 
Normal or skewed distributions (descriptive both2) - Copyright updated
Normal or skewed distributions (descriptive both2) - Copyright updatedNormal or skewed distributions (descriptive both2) - Copyright updated
Normal or skewed distributions (descriptive both2) - Copyright updated
 
Nature of the data practice - Copyright updated
Nature of the data practice - Copyright updatedNature of the data practice - Copyright updated
Nature of the data practice - Copyright updated
 
Nature of the data (spread) - Copyright updated
Nature of the data (spread) - Copyright updatedNature of the data (spread) - Copyright updated
Nature of the data (spread) - Copyright updated
 
Mode practice 1 - Copyright updated
Mode practice 1 - Copyright updatedMode practice 1 - Copyright updated
Mode practice 1 - Copyright updated
 
Nature of the data (descriptive) - Copyright updated
Nature of the data (descriptive) - Copyright updatedNature of the data (descriptive) - Copyright updated
Nature of the data (descriptive) - Copyright updated
 
Dichotomous or scaled
Dichotomous or scaledDichotomous or scaled
Dichotomous or scaled
 
Skewed less than 30 (ties)
Skewed less than 30 (ties)Skewed less than 30 (ties)
Skewed less than 30 (ties)
 
Skewed sample size less than 30
Skewed sample size less than 30Skewed sample size less than 30
Skewed sample size less than 30
 
Ordinal (ties)
Ordinal (ties)Ordinal (ties)
Ordinal (ties)
 
Ordinal and nominal
Ordinal and nominalOrdinal and nominal
Ordinal and nominal
 
Relationship covariates
Relationship   covariatesRelationship   covariates
Relationship covariates
 
Relationship nature of data
Relationship nature of dataRelationship nature of data
Relationship nature of data
 
Number of variables (predictive)
Number of variables (predictive)Number of variables (predictive)
Number of variables (predictive)
 
Levels of the iv
Levels of the ivLevels of the iv
Levels of the iv
 
Independent variables (2)
Independent variables (2)Independent variables (2)
Independent variables (2)
 

KĂźrzlich hochgeladen

1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi 6.pdf
1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi  6.pdf1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi  6.pdf
1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi 6.pdfQucHHunhnh
 
Kodo Millet PPT made by Ghanshyam bairwa college of Agriculture kumher bhara...
Kodo Millet  PPT made by Ghanshyam bairwa college of Agriculture kumher bhara...Kodo Millet  PPT made by Ghanshyam bairwa college of Agriculture kumher bhara...
Kodo Millet PPT made by Ghanshyam bairwa college of Agriculture kumher bhara...pradhanghanshyam7136
 
Activity 01 - Artificial Culture (1).pdf
Activity 01 - Artificial Culture (1).pdfActivity 01 - Artificial Culture (1).pdf
Activity 01 - Artificial Culture (1).pdfciinovamais
 
Unit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptx
Unit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptxUnit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptx
Unit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptxVishalSingh1417
 
1029 - Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
1029 -  Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf1029 -  Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
1029 - Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdfQucHHunhnh
 
Mixin Classes in Odoo 17 How to Extend Models Using Mixin Classes
Mixin Classes in Odoo 17  How to Extend Models Using Mixin ClassesMixin Classes in Odoo 17  How to Extend Models Using Mixin Classes
Mixin Classes in Odoo 17 How to Extend Models Using Mixin ClassesCeline George
 
Spellings Wk 3 English CAPS CARES Please Practise
Spellings Wk 3 English CAPS CARES Please PractiseSpellings Wk 3 English CAPS CARES Please Practise
Spellings Wk 3 English CAPS CARES Please PractiseAnaAcapella
 
Explore beautiful and ugly buildings. Mathematics helps us create beautiful d...
Explore beautiful and ugly buildings. Mathematics helps us create beautiful d...Explore beautiful and ugly buildings. Mathematics helps us create beautiful d...
Explore beautiful and ugly buildings. Mathematics helps us create beautiful d...christianmathematics
 
Introduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The Basics
Introduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The BasicsIntroduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The Basics
Introduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The BasicsTechSoup
 
Jual Obat Aborsi Hongkong ( Asli No.1 ) 085657271886 Obat Penggugur Kandungan...
Jual Obat Aborsi Hongkong ( Asli No.1 ) 085657271886 Obat Penggugur Kandungan...Jual Obat Aborsi Hongkong ( Asli No.1 ) 085657271886 Obat Penggugur Kandungan...
Jual Obat Aborsi Hongkong ( Asli No.1 ) 085657271886 Obat Penggugur Kandungan...ZurliaSoop
 
ComPTIA Overview | Comptia Security+ Book SY0-701
ComPTIA Overview | Comptia Security+ Book SY0-701ComPTIA Overview | Comptia Security+ Book SY0-701
ComPTIA Overview | Comptia Security+ Book SY0-701bronxfugly43
 
Basic Civil Engineering first year Notes- Chapter 4 Building.pptx
Basic Civil Engineering first year Notes- Chapter 4 Building.pptxBasic Civil Engineering first year Notes- Chapter 4 Building.pptx
Basic Civil Engineering first year Notes- Chapter 4 Building.pptxDenish Jangid
 
Dyslexia AI Workshop for Slideshare.pptx
Dyslexia AI Workshop for Slideshare.pptxDyslexia AI Workshop for Slideshare.pptx
Dyslexia AI Workshop for Slideshare.pptxcallscotland1987
 
FSB Advising Checklist - Orientation 2024
FSB Advising Checklist - Orientation 2024FSB Advising Checklist - Orientation 2024
FSB Advising Checklist - Orientation 2024Elizabeth Walsh
 
Single or Multiple melodic lines structure
Single or Multiple melodic lines structureSingle or Multiple melodic lines structure
Single or Multiple melodic lines structuredhanjurrannsibayan2
 
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docxPython Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docxRamakrishna Reddy Bijjam
 
Understanding Accommodations and Modifications
Understanding  Accommodations and ModificationsUnderstanding  Accommodations and Modifications
Understanding Accommodations and ModificationsMJDuyan
 
UGC NET Paper 1 Mathematical Reasoning & Aptitude.pdf
UGC NET Paper 1 Mathematical Reasoning & Aptitude.pdfUGC NET Paper 1 Mathematical Reasoning & Aptitude.pdf
UGC NET Paper 1 Mathematical Reasoning & Aptitude.pdfNirmal Dwivedi
 
How to Create and Manage Wizard in Odoo 17
How to Create and Manage Wizard in Odoo 17How to Create and Manage Wizard in Odoo 17
How to Create and Manage Wizard in Odoo 17Celine George
 

KĂźrzlich hochgeladen (20)

1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi 6.pdf
1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi  6.pdf1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi  6.pdf
1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi 6.pdf
 
Kodo Millet PPT made by Ghanshyam bairwa college of Agriculture kumher bhara...
Kodo Millet  PPT made by Ghanshyam bairwa college of Agriculture kumher bhara...Kodo Millet  PPT made by Ghanshyam bairwa college of Agriculture kumher bhara...
Kodo Millet PPT made by Ghanshyam bairwa college of Agriculture kumher bhara...
 
Activity 01 - Artificial Culture (1).pdf
Activity 01 - Artificial Culture (1).pdfActivity 01 - Artificial Culture (1).pdf
Activity 01 - Artificial Culture (1).pdf
 
Unit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptx
Unit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptxUnit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptx
Unit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptx
 
1029 - Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
1029 -  Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf1029 -  Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
1029 - Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
 
Mixin Classes in Odoo 17 How to Extend Models Using Mixin Classes
Mixin Classes in Odoo 17  How to Extend Models Using Mixin ClassesMixin Classes in Odoo 17  How to Extend Models Using Mixin Classes
Mixin Classes in Odoo 17 How to Extend Models Using Mixin Classes
 
Spellings Wk 3 English CAPS CARES Please Practise
Spellings Wk 3 English CAPS CARES Please PractiseSpellings Wk 3 English CAPS CARES Please Practise
Spellings Wk 3 English CAPS CARES Please Practise
 
Explore beautiful and ugly buildings. Mathematics helps us create beautiful d...
Explore beautiful and ugly buildings. Mathematics helps us create beautiful d...Explore beautiful and ugly buildings. Mathematics helps us create beautiful d...
Explore beautiful and ugly buildings. Mathematics helps us create beautiful d...
 
Introduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The Basics
Introduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The BasicsIntroduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The Basics
Introduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The Basics
 
Jual Obat Aborsi Hongkong ( Asli No.1 ) 085657271886 Obat Penggugur Kandungan...
Jual Obat Aborsi Hongkong ( Asli No.1 ) 085657271886 Obat Penggugur Kandungan...Jual Obat Aborsi Hongkong ( Asli No.1 ) 085657271886 Obat Penggugur Kandungan...
Jual Obat Aborsi Hongkong ( Asli No.1 ) 085657271886 Obat Penggugur Kandungan...
 
ComPTIA Overview | Comptia Security+ Book SY0-701
ComPTIA Overview | Comptia Security+ Book SY0-701ComPTIA Overview | Comptia Security+ Book SY0-701
ComPTIA Overview | Comptia Security+ Book SY0-701
 
Basic Civil Engineering first year Notes- Chapter 4 Building.pptx
Basic Civil Engineering first year Notes- Chapter 4 Building.pptxBasic Civil Engineering first year Notes- Chapter 4 Building.pptx
Basic Civil Engineering first year Notes- Chapter 4 Building.pptx
 
Dyslexia AI Workshop for Slideshare.pptx
Dyslexia AI Workshop for Slideshare.pptxDyslexia AI Workshop for Slideshare.pptx
Dyslexia AI Workshop for Slideshare.pptx
 
FSB Advising Checklist - Orientation 2024
FSB Advising Checklist - Orientation 2024FSB Advising Checklist - Orientation 2024
FSB Advising Checklist - Orientation 2024
 
Spatium Project Simulation student brief
Spatium Project Simulation student briefSpatium Project Simulation student brief
Spatium Project Simulation student brief
 
Single or Multiple melodic lines structure
Single or Multiple melodic lines structureSingle or Multiple melodic lines structure
Single or Multiple melodic lines structure
 
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docxPython Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx
 
Understanding Accommodations and Modifications
Understanding  Accommodations and ModificationsUnderstanding  Accommodations and Modifications
Understanding Accommodations and Modifications
 
UGC NET Paper 1 Mathematical Reasoning & Aptitude.pdf
UGC NET Paper 1 Mathematical Reasoning & Aptitude.pdfUGC NET Paper 1 Mathematical Reasoning & Aptitude.pdf
UGC NET Paper 1 Mathematical Reasoning & Aptitude.pdf
 
How to Create and Manage Wizard in Odoo 17
How to Create and Manage Wizard in Odoo 17How to Create and Manage Wizard in Odoo 17
How to Create and Manage Wizard in Odoo 17
 

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