1.

In a study to test the significance of effectiveness of negotiation for meaning towards the
improvement of students classroom interaction skill, a researcher has randomly selected
10 students for the research. Data on the students classroom interaction skill was taken
before the introduction of the negotiation for meaning as well as after the treatment (post-
training to 4 months follow-up).

a. Write the appropriate null and alternative hypotheses

Null hypothesis:
There is no evidence that students classroom interaction skill changes
significantly during three different training (pre- training, post- training and 4
months follow-up).

Alternative hypothesis:
There is evidence that students classroom interaction skill changes significantly
during three different training (pre- training, post- training and 4 months follow-
up).

b. Make your decision and conclusion and justify your answer.

Assessing Normality

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

pretrain 20 100.0% 0 0.0% 20 100.0%
posttrain 20 100.0% 0 0.0% 20 100.0%
fourmonths 20 100.0% 0 0.0% 20 100.0%
 Descriptives

Statistic Std. Error

pretrain Mean 3.5000 .45015

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.5578

Mean Upper Bound 4.4422

5% Trimmed Mean 3.3889

Median 3.0000

Variance 4.053

Std. Deviation 2.01311

Minimum 1.00

Maximum 8.00

Range 7.00

Interquartile Range 2.75

Skewness .774 .512

Kurtosis -.103 .992

posttrain Mean 5.5500 .55476
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 4.3889
Mean Upper Bound 6.7111
5% Trimmed Mean 5.5556
Median 5.0000
Variance 6.155
Std. Deviation 2.48098
Minimum 2.00
Maximum 9.00
Range 7.00
Interquartile Range 4.00
Skewness .118 .512
Kurtosis -1.279 .992
fourmonths Mean 5.4000 .47793

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 4.3997

Mean Upper Bound 6.4003

5% Trimmed Mean 5.3889

Median 5.0000

Variance 4.568

Std. Deviation 2.13739

Minimum 2.00
 Maximum 9.00

Range 7.00

Interquartile Range 3.00

Skewness .135 .512

Kurtosis -.818 .992

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

pretrain .198 20 .039 .917 20 .087

posttrain .138 20 .200* .908 20 .058
fourmonths .124 20 .200* .956 20 .465

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

pretrain .198 20 .039 .917 20 .087

posttrain .138 20 .200* .908 20 .058
fourmonths .124 20 .200* .956 20 .465

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Decision matrix
Shapiro-Wilk test
Statistics Alpha Sig. value Conclusion
value
Ho: Population distribution is normal.

Ha: Population distribution is not

normal.
.05 .087 Fail to reject null
Pre-training = .917 hypothesis, accept null
hypothesis.
.05 .058
Post-training = .908 Fail to reject null
hypothesis, accept null
.05 .465 hypothesis.
4 months follow-up = .956
Fail to reject null
hypothesis, accept null
hypothesis.

Conclusion: Using Shapiro-Wilk test for normality, because the sample size is small, n =20.
Since all the variable significant value greater than alpha level, we fail to reject null hypothesis
and accept null hypothesis. Thus the data does not violate the normality assumption. That means
the data is normally distributed.

Test the hypothesis:

Null hypothesis:
There is no evidence that students classroom interaction skill changes significantly during three
different training (pre- training, post- training and 4 months follow-up).

Alternative hypothesis:
There is evidence that students classroom interaction skill changes significantly during three
different training (pre- training, post- training and 4 months follow-up).
 General Linear Model

Within-Subjects Factors
Measure: MEASURE_1

Dependent
train Variable

1 Pretraining
2 Posttraining
3 Fourmonths

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

pretrain 3.5000 2.01311 20

posttrain 5.5500 2.48098 20
fourmonths 5.4000 2.13739 20

Multivariate Testsa

Partial Eta
Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Squared

train Pillai's Trace .588 12.851b 2.000 18.000 .000 .588

Wilks' Lambda .412 12.851b 2.000 18.000 .000 .588

Hotelling's Trace 1.428 12.851b 2.000 18.000 .000 .588

Roy's Largest Root 1.428 12.851b 2.000 18.000 .000 .588

a. Design: Intercept
Within Subjects Design: train
b. Exact statistic

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya

Measure: MEASURE_1

Epsilonb

Approx. Chi- Greenhouse-

Within Subjects Effect Mauchly's W Square df Sig. Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

train .791 4.220 2 .121 .827 .896 .500

Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an
identity matrix.

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Measure: MEASURE_1

Type III Sum of Partial Eta

Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

train Sphericity Assumed 52.233 2 26.117 8.106 .001 .299

Greenhouse-Geisser 52.233 1.654 31.575 8.106 .002 .299

Huynh-Feldt 52.233 1.792 29.146 8.106 .002 .299

Lower-bound 52.233 1.000 52.233 8.106 .010 .299

Error(train) Sphericity Assumed 122.433 38 3.222

Greenhouse-Geisser 122.433 31.431 3.895

Huynh-Feldt 122.433 34.050 3.596

Lower-bound 122.433 19.000 6.444

a. Design: Intercept
Within Subjects Design: train
b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-
Subjects Effects table.

Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts

Measure: MEASURE_1

Type III Sum of Partial Eta

Source train Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

train Linear 36.100 1 36.100 9.540 .006 .334

Quadratic 16.133 1 16.133 6.066 .024 .242

Error(train) Linear 71.900 19 3.784

Quadratic 50.533 19 2.660

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed Variable: Average

Type III Sum of Partial Eta

Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Intercept 1392.017 1 1392.017 167.060 .000 .898

Error 158.317 19 8.332
 Test Alpha Sig. value Conclusion
value
Ho: The correlations among the three .05 .121 Fail to reject null
training be equal. hypothesis, accept null
hypothesis.
Ha: The correlations among the three
training be no equal.

The Mauchys test of spherecity indicated Chi-square statistics has a value of 4.22 and a p-value
of 0.121. Therefore we fail to null hypothesis, accept null hypothesis and concluded that met the
assumption of sphericity.

Test Alpha Sig. value Conclusion

value
Null hypothesis:
There is no evidence that students
classroom interaction skill changes
significantly during three different
training (pre- training, post- training and
4 months follow-up).

Alternative hypothesis:
There is evidence that students
classroom interaction skill changes
significantly during three different
training (pre- training, post- training and
4 months follow-up).
.05 .000 Reject null hypothesis,
Wilks Lambda test accept alternative
hypothesis.

The Wilks Lambda test is used since sphericity assumed. The test statistic (F) equals 12.851,
with a corresponding p-value .000. Therefore, we reject null hypothesis, accept alternative
hypothesis: There is evidence that students classroom interaction skill changes significantly
during three different training (pre- training, post- training and 4 months follow-up). Mean of pre
training is lowest (M = 3.5000, SD = 2.01311), which before training is lowest. After training,
the mean increase, post training (M = 5.5500, SD = 2.48098). However, after four months, the
mean dropped, the score after 4 months follow up (M = 5.4000, SD = 2.13739). Hence, there is
evidence that students classroom interaction skill changes significantly during three different
training (pre- training, post- training and 4 months follow-up), Wilks Lambda = .421, F (2, 18)
= 12.851, p = .000.
 c. Calculate and interpret an appropriate effect size

The Partial eta squared given in the Multivariate Test output box indicated the value is .588, this
result suggests a large effect size, which represent 58.8%.

2. Using the SURVEY.SAV file, select a set of variables (YOUR CHOICE!!) suitable to
conduct a Factorial- ANOVA (2 factor).

a. Write the appropriate null and alternative hypotheses

Null hypothesis:
Ho1: There is no significant difference between genders in life satisfication.
Ho2: There is no significant difference in life satisfication for three age groups.
Ho3: There is no significant difference in the effect of age on life satisfication
for males and females.

Alternative hypothesis:
Ha1: There is significant difference between genders in life satisfication.
Ha2: There is significant difference in life satisfication for three age groups.
Ha3: There is significant difference in the effect of age on life satisfication for
males and females.

b. Make your decision and conclusion and justify your answer.

Assessing Normality

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

Total life satisfaction 436 99.3% 3 0.7% 439 100.0%

 Descriptives

Statistic Std. Error

Total life satisfaction Mean 22.38 .324

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 21.74

Mean Upper Bound 23.02

5% Trimmed Mean 22.52

Median 23.00

Variance 45.827

Std. Deviation 6.770

Minimum 5

Maximum 35

Range 30

Interquartile Range 9

Skewness -.323 .117

Kurtosis -.450 .233

Extreme Values

Case Number Value

Total life satisfaction Highest 1 69 35

2 82 35

3 112 35

4 186 35

5 213 35a

Lowest 1 41 5

2 30 5

3 13 5
4 10 5

5 7 5

a. Only a partial list of cases with the value 35 are shown in the table of
upper extremes.
 Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Total life satisfaction .087 436 .000 .982 436 .000

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Decision matrix

Kolmogorov-Smirrnov test

Test Alpha Sig. value Conclusion

value
Ho: Population distribution is normal. .05 .000 Reject null hypothesis,
accept alternative
Ha: Population distribution is not hypothesis.
normal.

Conclusion: Using Kolmogorov-Smirrnov test for normality, since the significant value lower
than alpha level, sig. value is .000, we reject null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis.
Thus the data violate the normality assumption. However, this is quite common in larger group
(Pallant, 2013).
Test the hypothesis:

Null hypothesis:

Ho1: There is no significant difference between genders in life satisfication.

Ho2: There is no significant difference in life satisfication for three age groups.

Ho3: There is no significant difference in the effect of age on life satisfication for males and
females.

Alternative hypothesis:

Ha1: There is significant difference between genders in life satisfication.

Ha2: There is significant difference in life satisfication for three age groups.

Ha3: There is significant difference in the effect of age on life satisfication for males and
females.

Univariate Analysis of Variance

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N

age 3 groups 1 18 - 29 147

2 30 - 44 153

3 45+ 136
sex 1 MALES 185

2 FEMALES 251

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Total life satisfaction

age 3 groups sex Mean Std. Deviation N

18 - 29 MALES 21.67 6.456 60

FEMALES 23.29 6.624 87

Total 22.63 6.583 147

30 - 44 MALES 21.40 6.611 68
FEMALES 21.82 7.083 85
Total 21.63 6.858 153
45+ MALES 22.00 6.593 57
FEMALES 23.63 6.978 79
Total 22.95 6.842 136
Total MALES 21.67 6.525 185

FEMALES 22.90 6.911 251

Total 22.38 6.770 436

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Dependent Variable: Total life satisfaction

F df1 df2 Sig.

.503 5 430 .774

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of

the dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + agegp3 + sex + agegp3 *
sex

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: Total life satisfaction

Type III Sum of Partial Eta

Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Corrected Model 326.421a 5 65.284 1.432 .212 .016

Intercept 211053.805 1 211053.805 4628.341 .000 .915
agegp3 111.391 2 55.695 1.221 .296 .006
sex 159.641 1 159.641 3.501 .062 .008
agegp3 * sex 35.094 2 17.547 .385 .681 .002
Error 19608.136 430 45.600
Total 238281.000 436
Corrected Total 19934.557 435

a. R Squared = .016 (Adjusted R Squared = .005)

 Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Total life satisfaction
Tukey HSD

Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval

(I) age 3 groups (J) age 3 groups (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

18 - 29 30 - 44 .99 .780 .412 -.84 2.83

45+ -.32 .803 .915 -2.21 1.57

30 - 44 18 - 29 -.99 .780 .412 -2.83 .84
45+ -1.31 .796 .225 -3.19 .56
45+ 18 - 29 .32 .803 .915 -1.57 2.21

30 - 44 1.31 .796 .225 -.56 3.19

Based on observed means.

The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 45.600.

Total life satisfaction

Tukey HSDa,b,c

Subset

age 3 groups N 1

30 - 44 153 21.63
18 - 29 147 22.63
45+ 136 22.95
Sig. .223

Means for groups in homogeneous

subsets are displayed.
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square(Error) =
45.600.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =
144.986.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The
harmonic mean of the group sizes is
used. Type I error levels are not
guaranteed.
c. Alpha = .05.
 Group Statistics

sex N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Total life satisfaction MALES 185 21.67 6.525 .480

FEMALES 251 22.90 6.911 .436

Group Statistics

sex N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Total life satisfaction MALES 185 21.67 6.525 .480

FEMALES 251 22.90 6.911 .436

Decision matrix
Test Alpha Sig. value Conclusion
value
Null hypothesis: .05 .062 Fail to reject null
Ho1: There is no significant difference hypothesis, accept null
between genders in life hypothesis.
satisfaction.

Alternative hypothesis:
Ha1: There is significant difference
between genders in life
satisfaction.

Test Alpha Sig. value Conclusion

value
Null hypothesis: .05 .296 Fail to reject null
Ho2: There is no significant difference hypothesis, accept null
in life satisfaction for three age hypothesis.
groups.

Alternative hypothesis:
Ha2: There is significant difference in
life satisfaction for three age groups.

Test Alpha Sig. value Conclusion

value
Null hypothesis: .05 .681 Fail to reject null
Ho3: There is no significant difference hypothesis, accept null
in the effect of age on life hypothesis.
satisfaction for males and females.

Alternative hypothesis:
Ha3: There is significant difference in
the effect of age on life satisfaction
for males and females.

Conclusion: A two-way between-groups analysis of variances was conducted to explore the

impact of gender and age on level of life satisfaction. Respondents were divided into three
groups according their age (Group 1: 18-29 years; Group 2: 30-44 years; Group 3: 45 years and
above). The interaction effect between sex and age group was no statistically significant, F (2,
430) = .385, p = .681. There was not statistically significant main effect for gender, F (2, 430) =
3.501, p = .062. There was not statistically significant main effect for age, F (2, 430) = 1.221, p =
.296. Post-hoc comparison using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the means score for all age
groups did not differ significantly from either of the other groups, 18-29 years age group (M =
22.63, SD = 6.583), 30-44 years age group (M = 21.63, SD = 6.858) and 45 years and above (M
= 22.95, SD = 6.842). T-test indicated that the means score for male and female did not differ
significantly, male (M = 21.67, SD = 6.525) and female (M = 22.9, SD = 6.911).

c. Calculate and interpret an appropriate effect size

Partial eta squared (3 age groups) =111.391 / 111.391 + 19608.136

= 0.006

The effect size for the age groups variables was small (partial eta squared = .006). This
represents only 0.6% of the variance in life satisfaction scores explained by three age groups.
According to the guidelines proposed by Cohen 1988, for interpreting these values are:
.01 = small effect, .06 = moderate effect and .14 = large effect.

Partial eta squared (gender groups) =159.641 / 159.641 + 19608.136

= 0.008

The effect size for the gender groups variables was small (partial eta squared = .008). This
represents only 0.8% of the variance in life satisfaction scores explained by gender.

3. Using the BP. SAV file, select a set of variables (YOUR CHOICE!!) suitable to conduct
MANCOVA.

a. Write the appropriate null and alternative hypotheses

Null hypothesis:
Race is not the factor to the diastolic bp cold pressor and heart rate cold pressor, by controlling
age.
Alternative hypothesis:
Race is the factor to the diastolic bp cold pressor and heart rate cold pressor, by controlling age.

b. Make your decision and conclusion and justify your answer.

Assessing Normality

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

diastolic bp cold pressor 179 98.9% 2 1.1% 181 100.0%

heart rate cold pressor 180 99.4% 1 0.6% 181 100.0%
 Descriptives

Statistic Std. Error

diastolic bp cold pressor Mean 77.7207 1.09713

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 75.5556

Mean Upper Bound 79.8857

5% Trimmed Mean 77.5456

Median 77.0000

Variance 215.461

Std. Deviation 14.67859

Minimum 34.00

Maximum 132.00

Range 98.00

Interquartile Range 19.00

Skewness .286 .182

Kurtosis 1.326 .361

heart rate cold pressor Mean 83.9722 1.14727

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 81.7083

Mean Upper Bound 86.2361

5% Trimmed Mean 83.7407

Median 83.0000

Variance 236.921

Std. Deviation 15.39224

Minimum 47.00

Maximum 144.00
Range 97.00

Interquartile Range 19.00

Skewness .351 .181

Kurtosis 1.156 .360

 Extreme Values

Case Number Value

diastolic bp cold pressor Highest 1 177 132.00

2 83 124.00

3 155 121.00

4 59 111.00

5 123 110.00

Lowest 1 22 34.00

2 33 42.00

3 112 45.00

4 127 46.00

5 75 49.00
heart rate cold pressor Highest 1 117 144.00

2 180 126.00

3 137 124.00

4 48 120.00

5 134 119.00

Lowest 1 161 47.00

2 32 48.00

3 9 48.00

4 174 51.00

5 67 51.00

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

diastolic bp cold pressor .053 179 .200* .982 179 .019

heart rate cold pressor .052 180 .200* .984 180 .035

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
diastolic bp cold pressor

diastolic bp cold pressor Stem-and-Leaf Plot

Frequency Stem & Leaf

1.00 Extremes (=<34)

1.00 4 . 2
3.00 4 . 569
4.00 5 . 0014
7.00 5 . 5666778
9.00 6 . 012233444
23.00 6 . 55556666666677777888899
27.00 7 . 000000000111122222333334444
22.00 7 . 5555555556667777788899
28.00 8 . 0000001111122333334444444444
20.00 8 . 55555666777777899999
16.00 9 . 0001112233334444
10.00 9 . 5555567778
2.00 10 . 23
1.00 10 . 5
2.00 11 . 01
3.00 Extremes (>=121)

Stem width: 10.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)
heart rate cold pressor

heart rate cold pressor Stem-and-Leaf Plot

Frequency Stem & Leaf

3.00 4 . 788
4.00 5 . 1133
3.00 5 . 788
6.00 6 . 233344
11.00 6 . 66678888899
19.00 7 . 0000011112333344444
21.00 7 . 555567777778888899999
31.00 8 . 0000000001111222223333333444444
23.00 8 . 55566667777888888888999
19.00 9 . 0011111122233333334
15.00 9 . 556677777888889
12.00 10 . 000011233444
4.00 10 . 5578
3.00 11 . 002
2.00 11 . 89
1.00 12 . 0
3.00 Extremes (>=124)

Stem width: 10.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)
General Linear Model

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N

Race 2 Asian or Pacific

2
Islander

3 Black, Not of
5
Hispanic Origin

4 Hispanic 4

5 White, not of
165
Hispanic origin

8 8 1

Descriptive Statistics

Race Mean Std. Deviation N

diastolic bp cold pressor Asian or Pacific Islander 89.0000 5.65685 2

Black, Not of Hispanic Origin 69.4000 26.55748 5

Hispanic 76.0000 9.38083 4

White, not of Hispanic origin 78.0061 14.46168 165

8 65.0000 . 1

Total 77.7684 14.73314 177

heart rate cold pressor Asian or Pacific Islander 92.0000 7.07107 2

Black, Not of Hispanic Origin 79.0000 21.14237 5

Hispanic 79.5000 15.35144 4

White, not of Hispanic origin 84.0485 15.49028 165

8 88.0000 . 1

Total 83.9153 15.49298 177

 Box's Test of Equality of
Covariance Matricesa

Box's M 11.299
F 1.467
df1 6
df2 594.321
Sig. .187

Tests the null hypothesis

that the observed
covariance matrices of the
dependent variables are
equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + age
+ race

Multivariate Testsa

Hypothesis Partial Eta Noncent. Observed

Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared Parameter Powerd

Intercept Pillai's Trace .066 5.984b 2.000 170.000 .003 .066 11.968 .876

Wilks' Lambda .934 5.984b 2.000 170.000 .003 .066 11.968 .876

Hotelling's Trace .070 5.984b 2.000 170.000 .003 .066 11.968 .876

Roy's Largest
.070 5.984b 2.000 170.000 .003 .066 11.968 .876
Root
age Pillai's Trace .035 3.068b 2.000 170.000 .049 .035 6.135 .586
Wilks' Lambda .965 3.068b 2.000 170.000 .049 .035 6.135 .586
Hotelling's Trace .036 3.068b 2.000 170.000 .049 .035 6.135 .586
Roy's Largest
.036 3.068b 2.000 170.000 .049 .035 6.135 .586
Root
race Pillai's Trace .025 .541 8.000 342.000 .826 .012 4.326 .251

Wilks' Lambda .975 .539b 8.000 340.000 .827 .013 4.313 .250

Hotelling's Trace .025 .537 8.000 338.000 .828 .013 4.299 .249

Roy's Largest
.021 .904c 4.000 171.000 .463 .021 3.616 .283
Root

a. Design: Intercept + age + race

b. Exact statistic
c. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.
d. Computed using alpha = .05
 Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

F df1 df2 Sig.

diastolic bp cold pressor 2.854 4 172 .025

heart rate cold pressor .742 4 172 .565

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal
across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + age + race

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Type III
Sum of Mean Partial Eta Noncent. Observed
Source Dependent Variable Squares df Square F Sig. Squared Parameter Powerc

Corrected diastolic bp cold

2090.228a 5 418.046 1.979 .084 .055 9.897 .656
Model pressor

heart rate cold

396.986b 5 79.397 .324 .898 .009 1.622 .131
pressor
Intercept diastolic bp cold
328.367 1 328.367 1.555 .214 .009 1.555 .236
pressor
heart rate cold
2821.544 1 2821.544 11.529 .001 .063 11.529 .922
pressor
age diastolic bp cold
1302.920 1 1302.920 6.169 .014 .035 6.169 .695
pressor
heart rate cold
47.869 1 47.869 .196 .659 .001 .196 .072
pressor
race diastolic bp cold
704.877 4 176.219 .834 .505 .019 3.338 .263
pressor
heart rate cold
328.055 4 82.014 .335 .854 .008 1.340 .125
pressor
Error diastolic bp cold
36113.274 171 211.189
pressor
heart rate cold
41848.743 171 244.729
pressor
Total diastolic bp cold 1108685.00
177
pressor 0
 heart rate cold 1288639.00
177
pressor 0
Corrected diastolic bp cold
38203.503 176
Total pressor

heart rate cold

42245.729 176
pressor

a. R Squared = .055 (Adjusted R Squared = .027)

b. R Squared = .009 (Adjusted R Squared = -.020)
c. Computed using alpha = .05

Observed * Predicted * Std. Residual Plots

Profile Plots

diastolic bp cold pressor

heart rate cold pressor

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov indicates all the dependent variables sig. values are greater than alpha
level = .05. Therefore, we fail to reject null hypothesis and accept null hypothesis. Thus the data
does not violate the normality assumption. That means the data is normally distributed.

4. In an experiment, a researcher is interested to test the effectiveness of a new teaching

method reduce students anxiety on learning statistics. The new teaching method (coded
as 1) was used in the experiment group while the existing teaching method (coded as 0)
was used for the control group.
c. Write the appropriate null and alternative hypotheses
 Null hypothesis:
There is no significant difference in the mean score for pre-test and post-test.

Alternative hypothesis:
There is significant difference in the mean score for pre-test and post-test.

d. Make your decision and conclusion and justify your answer.

Assessing Normality

teachinggroup

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

teachinggroup N Percent N Percent N Percent

post old tm 10 100.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0%

new tm 10 100.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0%

Descriptives

teachinggroup Statistic Std. Error

post old tm Mean 55.1500 1.91348

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 50.8214

Mean Upper Bound 59.4786

5% Trimmed Mean 55.3056

Median 55.5000

Variance 36.614

Std. Deviation 6.05094

Minimum 45.00

Maximum 62.50

Range 17.50

Interquartile Range 10.00

Skewness -.498 .687
 Kurtosis -.632 1.334

new tm Mean 47.3000 2.82469

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 40.9101

Mean Upper Bound 53.6899

5% Trimmed Mean 47.1389

Median 47.0000

Variance 79.789

Std. Deviation 8.93246

Minimum 35.00

Maximum 62.50

Range 27.50

Interquartile Range 13.75

Skewness .419 .687

Kurtosis -.536 1.334

Extreme Values

teachinggroup Case Number Value

post old tm Highest 1 15 62.50

2 17 62.50

3 14 60.00

4 16 58.00

5 20 56.00

Lowest 1 11 45.00

2 13 46.50
3 12 52.00

4 19 54.00

5 18 55.00

new tm Highest 1 1 62.50

2 4 59.50

3 2 51.00

4 7 50.00

5 8 48.00

Lowest 1 5 35.00
2 10 37.50
 3 9 40.00

4 6 43.50

5 3 46.00

a. Only a partial list of cases with the value 65.00 are shown in the table of
upper extremes.
b. Only a partial list of cases with the value 65.00 are shown in the table of
lower extremes.

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

teachinggroup Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

post old tm .125 10 .200* .935 10 .495

new tm .139 10 .200* .960 10 .781

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

post

Histograms
Stem-and-Leaf Plots

post Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Group= old tm

Frequency Stem & Leaf

.00 4 .
2.00 4 . 56
2.00 5 . 24
3.00 5 . 568
3.00 6 . 022

Stem width: 10.00

 Each leaf: 1 case(s)

post Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Group= new tm

Frequency Stem & Leaf

2.00 3 . 57
4.00 4 . 0368
3.00 5 . 019
1.00 6 . 2

Stem width: 10.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Normal Q-Q Plots

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plots
Decision matrix

Shapiro-Wilk test

Statistics Alpha value Sig. value Conclusion

Ho: Population distribution is normal.

Ha: Population distribution is not normal.

Post-test old teaching method .05 .495 Fail to reject null

hypothesis, accept null
hypothesis.

New teaching method .05 .781 Fail to reject null

hypothesis, accept null
hypothesis.
Conclusion: Using Shapiro-Wilk test for normality, because the sample size is small, n =20. Since all the
variable significant value greater than alpha level, we fail to reject null hypothesis and accept null
hypothesis. Thus the data does not violate the normality assumption. That means the data is normally
distributed.

Test the hypothesis:

Null hypothesis: There is no significant effect of control group and treatment group on anxiety level.

Alternative hypothesis: There is significant effect of control group and treatment group on anxiety level.
Univariate Analysis of Variance

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N

teachinggroup .00 old tm 10

1.00 new tm 10

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: post

teachinggroup Mean Std. Deviation N

old tm 55.1500 6.05094 10

new tm 47.3000 8.93246 10
Total 51.2250 8.44717 20

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Dependent Variable: post

F df1 df2 Sig.

6.691 1 18 .019
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Group + pre + Group * pre

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: post

Type III Sum of Partial Eta

Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Corrected Model 832.182a 3 277.394 8.477 .001 .614

Intercept 7.946 1 7.946 .243 .629 .015
Group 14.451 1 14.451 .442 .516 .027
pre 522.869 1 522.869 15.979 .001 .500
Group * pre 4.245 1 4.245 .130 .723 .008
Error 523.556 16 32.722
Total 53835.750 20
Corrected Total 1355.738 19

a. R Squared = .614 (Adjusted R Squared = .541)

Estimated Marginal Means

teachinggroup
Dependent Variable: post

95% Confidence Interval

teachinggroup Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

old tm 55.672a 1.819 51.816 59.527

new tm 46.675a 1.822 42.813 50.537

a. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: pre =
63.6750.

Pairwise Comparisons
Dependent Variable: post

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean Difference Differenceb

(I) teachinggroup (J) teachinggroup (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b Lower Bound Upper Bound

old tm new tm 8.997* 2.574 .003 3.540 14.454

*
new tm old tm -8.997 2.574 .003 -14.454 -3.540

Based on estimated marginal means

*. The mean difference is significant at the .01 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

Univariate Tests
Dependent Variable: post
 Partial Eta
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Contrast 399.676 1 399.676 12.214 .003 .433

Error 523.556 16 32.722

The F tests the effect of teachinggroup. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise
comparisons among the estimated marginal means.

A one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare students anxiety on

learning statistics between treatment group which used new teaching method and control group
which used existing teaching methods. A covariate was included to partial out the effects of
students anxiety level before apply the new teaching method to treatment group.

Examination of the Shapiro-Wilk statistics and histograms for each group indicated that the
ANCOVA assumption of normality was supported. Scatterplots indicated that the relationship
between the covariate (pre-test) and dependent variable (post-test) was linear. The assumptions
of homogeneity of variances were supported by the absence of the significant IV-by-covariate
interaction, F (1, 16) = .130, p = .723. However the Levenes test, F (1, 18) = 6.691, p = .02.
Therefore a more stringent alpha be used (.01) to ensure the variances are equal and violated the
assumption.

There was a significant difference between the control group and treatment group on post test on
the anxiety level, F (1, 16) = 12.214, p = .003, partial eta squared = .433. The pairwise
comparisons were significant between control group (oldtm) and treatment group (newtm), p <
.01. The treatment group (M = 46.675, SD = 1.822) is lower than control group (M = 55.672, SD
= 1.819) after receive treatment, which used new teaching method, reduced their anxiety level.

e. Calculate and interpret an appropriate effect size

The Partial eta squared indicated the value is .433, this result suggests a large effect size, which
represents 43.3%.
 5. Using the experim3ED.sav file, select a set of variables (YOUR CHOICE!!) suitable to conduct a
repeated measures mixed between-within ANOVA.
a. Write the appropriate null and alternative hypotheses

Null hypothesis:

Ho1: There is no significant difference for interaction between the types of program conducted and
also across time.

Ho2: There is no significant difference change in participants confidence level across the three time
periods.

Ho3: There is no significant difference in the confidence level for participants in the maths skills group
and the confidence building group.

Alternative hypothesis:

Ha1: There is significant difference for interaction between the types of program conducted and
also across time.

Ha2: There is significant difference change in participants confidence level across the three time
periods.

Ha3: There is significant difference in the confidence level for participants in the maths skills group
and the confidence building group.

b. Make your decision and conclusion and justify your answer.

Assessing Normality

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

confidence time1 30 100.0% 0 0.0% 30 100.0%

confidence time2 30 100.0% 0 0.0% 30 100.0%
confidence time3 30 100.0% 0 0.0% 30 100.0%

Descriptives

Statistic Std. Error

confidence time1 Mean 19.00 .980

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 17.00

Mean Upper Bound 21.00

5% Trimmed Mean 18.87

Median 20.00

Variance 28.828

Std. Deviation 5.369

Minimum 11

Maximum 29

Range 18

Interquartile Range 8

Skewness .365 .427

Kurtosis -.814 .833

confidence time2 Mean 21.87 1.021
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 19.78
Mean Upper Bound 23.96
5% Trimmed Mean 21.70
Median 21.00
Variance 31.292
Std. Deviation 5.594
Minimum 13
Maximum 35
Range 22
Interquartile Range 9
Skewness .338 .427
Kurtosis -.547 .833
confidence time3 Mean 25.03 .950

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 23.09

Mean Upper Bound 26.98

5% Trimmed Mean 25.11

Median 26.00

Variance 27.068

Std. Deviation 5.203

Minimum 14

Maximum 34
Range 20
 Interquartile Range 10

Skewness -.151 .427

Kurtosis -.954 .833

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

confidence time1 .112 30 .200* .936 30 .070

confidence time2 .131 30 .200* .965 30 .419
confidence time3 .119 30 .200* .959 30 .294
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

confidence time1
confidence time2
confidence time3
Decision matrix
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
Statistics Alpha value Sig. value Conclusion
Ho: Population distribution is normal.

Ha: Population distribution is not normal.

Confidence time 1 = .112 .05 .200 Fail to reject null

hypothesis, accept null
hypothesis.

Confidence time 1 = .131 .05 .200 Fail to reject null

hypothesis, accept null
hypothesis.

Confidence time 1 = .119 .05 .200 Fail to reject null

hypothesis, accept null
hypothesis.
Conclusion: Using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality. Since all the variable significant
value greater than alpha level, we fail to reject null hypothesis and accept null hypothesis. Thus
the data does not violate the normality assumption. That means the data is normally distributed.

Test the hypothesis:

Null hypothesis:

There is no significant difference in the confidence level for participants in the maths skills group and the
confidence building group.

Alternative hypothesis:

There is significant difference in the confidence level for participants in the maths skills group and the
confidence building group.

Within-Subjects Factors
Measure: MEASURE_1

Dependent
factor3 Variable

1 confid1
2 confid2
3 confid3

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N

type of class 1 maths skills 15

2 confidence
15
building

Descriptive Statistics

type of class Mean Std. Deviation N

confidence time1 maths skills 18.87 5.527 15

confidence building 19.13 5.397 15

Total 19.00 5.369 30
 confidence time2 maths skills 20.00 4.660 15
confidence building 23.73 5.970 15
Total 21.87 5.594 30
confidence time3 maths skills 24.07 4.543 15

confidence building 26.00 5.782 15

Total 25.03 5.203 30

Box's Test of Equality of

Covariance Matricesa

Box's M 8.522
F 1.254
df1 6
df2 5680.302
Sig. .275

Tests the null hypothesis

that the observed
covariance matrices of the
dependent variables are
equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept +
group
Within Subjects Design:
factor3

Multivariate Testsa

Partial Eta
Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Squared

factor3 Pillai's Trace .752 40.897b 2.000 27.000 .000 .752

Wilks' Lambda .248 40.897b 2.000 27.000 .000 .752

Hotelling's Trace 3.029 40.897b 2.000 27.000 .000 .752

Roy's Largest Root 3.029 40.897b 2.000 27.000 .000 .752

factor3 * group Pillai's Trace .207 3.534b 2.000 27.000 .043 .207

Wilks' Lambda .793 3.534b 2.000 27.000 .043 .207

Hotelling's Trace .262 3.534b 2.000 27.000 .043 .207

Roy's Largest Root .262 3.534b 2.000 27.000 .043 .207

a. Design: Intercept + group
Within Subjects Design: factor3
b. Exact statistic

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya

Measure: MEASURE_1

Epsilonb

Approx. Chi- Greenhouse-

Within Subjects Effect Mauchly's W Square df Sig. Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

factor3 .573 15.059 2 .001 .701 .753 .500

Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to
an identity matrix.
a. Design: Intercept + group
Within Subjects Design: factor3
b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of
Within-Subjects Effects table.

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Measure: MEASURE_1

Type III Sum of Partial Eta

Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

factor3 Sphericity Assumed 546.467 2 273.233 35.383 .000 .558

Greenhouse-Geisser 546.467 1.401 390.038 35.383 .000 .558

Huynh-Feldt 546.467 1.505 363.097 35.383 .000 .558

Lower-bound 546.467 1.000 546.467 35.383 .000 .558

factor3 * group Sphericity Assumed 45.089 2 22.544 2.919 .062 .094
Greenhouse-Geisser 45.089 1.401 32.182 2.919 .082 .094
Huynh-Feldt 45.089 1.505 29.959 2.919 .079 .094
Lower-bound 45.089 1.000 45.089 2.919 .099 .094
Error(factor3) Sphericity Assumed 432.444 56 7.722

Greenhouse-Geisser 432.444 39.230 11.023

Huynh-Feldt 432.444 42.140 10.262

Lower-bound 432.444 28.000 15.444

 Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts
Measure: MEASURE_1

Type III Sum of Partial Eta

Source factor3 Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

factor3 Linear 546.017 1 546.017 52.526 .000 .652

Quadratic .450 1 .450 .089 .767 .003

factor3 * group Linear 10.417 1 10.417 1.002 .325 .035
Quadratic 34.672 1 34.672 6.867 .014 .197
Error(factor3) Linear 291.067 28 10.395

Quadratic 141.378 28 5.049

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

F df1 df2 Sig.

confidence time1 .000 1 28 .986

confidence time2 1.718 1 28 .201
confidence time3 .873 1 28 .358

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is
equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + group
Within Subjects Design: factor3

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed Variable: Average

Type III Sum of Partial Eta

Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Intercept 43428.100 1 43428.100 619.488 .000 .957

group 88.011 1 88.011 1.255 .272 .043
Error 1962.889 28 70.103

Profile Plots
Decision matrix

Test Alpha value Sig. value Conclusion

Null hypothesis:
Ho1: .05 .043 Reject null hypothesis,
There is no significant difference for accept alternative
interaction between the types of program hypothesis.
conducted and also across time.

Alternative hypothesis:
Ha1:
There is significant difference for
interaction between the types of program
conducted and also across time.

Test Alpha value Sig. value Conclusion

Null hypothesis:
Ho2: .05 .000 Reject null hypothesis,
There is no significant difference change in accept alternative
participants confidence level across the hypothesis.
three time periods.

Alternative hypothesis:
Ha2:
There is significant difference change in
participants confidence level across the
three time periods.

Test Alpha value Sig. value Conclusion

Null hypothesis:
Ho3: .05 .272 Fail to reject null
There is no significant difference in the hypothesis, accept null
confidence level for participants in the hypothesis.
maths skills group and the confidence
building group.

Alternative hypothesis:
Ha3:
There is significant difference in the
confidence level for participants in the
maths skills group and the confidence
building group.

According to the Boxs Test of equality if a covariance matrix, the significant value is .275,
greater than .001, we fail to reject the null hypotheses, and we have not violated the assumption
of covariance matrices.

The Levenes Test of Equality of Error Variances indicates all the significant values were larger
than alpha value (.05), therefore fail to reject null hypothesis, which there is homogeneity of
variances and assumption of homogeneity of variances s not violated.

A mixed between-within subject analysis of variance was conducted to assess the impact of two
different approaches (Math skills, confidence building) on participants scores of confidents
level, across three time periods (pre-intervention, post intervention and follow up). There was
significant interaction between the types of program conducted and also across time, Wilks
lambda = . 793, F (2, 27) = 3.53, p = .043. The partial-eta squared = .207.
There was a substantial main effect of time, Wilks lambda = .248, F 92, 27) = 40.897, p = .000,
partial eta squared = .752, with both groups showing a increasing in level of confidence across
the three time periods. However the main effect comparing the two types of intervention was not
significant, F (1, 28) = 1.255, p = .272, partial eta squared = .043. This indicates no difference in
the effectiveness of the two different approaches to increase confident level among students.

c. Calculate and interpret an appropriate effect size

There was significant interaction between the types of program conducted and also across time,
the effect size is large effect, the partial-eta squared = .207, which represents 20.7%. There was a
substantial main effect of time, the effect size is 75.2 (partial-eta squared = .752). The effect size
of the between-subject effect is partial eta squared = .043, which represents 4.3%, is small effect
size. Therefore it did not reach statistical significance.

6. Using the SURVEY. SAV file, select a set of variables (YOUR CHOICE!!) suitable to conduct a one-
way MANOVA.

a. Write the appropriate null and alternative hypotheses

Null hypothesis:

Ho1: There is no significant between with child group and without child group in terms of negative
affect.

Ho2: There is no significant between with child group and without child group in terms of positive
affect.

Ho3: There is no significant between with child group and without child group in terms of perceived
stress.

Alternative hypothesis:

Ha1: There is significant between with child group and without child group in terms of negative
affect.

Ha2: There is significant between with child group and without child group in terms of positive
affect.

Ha3: There is significant between with child group and without child group in terms of perceived
stress.
 b. Make your decision and conclusion and justify your answer.

Residuals Statisticsa

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N

Predicted Value 1.45 1.78 1.58 .059 431

Std. Predicted Value -2.079 3.462 .000 1.000 431
Standard Error of Predicted
.025 .104 .045 .014 431
Value
Adjusted Predicted Value 1.45 1.78 1.58 .060 431
Residual -.747 .544 .000 .491 431
Std. Residual -1.517 1.104 .000 .997 431
Stud. Residual -1.538 1.113 .000 1.001 431
Deleted Residual -.768 .553 .000 .496 431
Stud. Deleted Residual -1.540 1.113 .000 1.001 431
Mahal. Distance .092 18.090 2.993 2.798 431
Cook's Distance .000 .020 .002 .002 431
Centered Leverage Value .000 .042 .007 .007 431

a. Dependent Variable: child

General Linear Model

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N

child 1 YES 182

2 NO 249

Descriptive Statistics

child Mean Std. Deviation N

 Total positive affect YES 34.64 7.173 182

NO 32.95 7.236 249

Total 33.66 7.249 431

Total negative affect YES 18.90 6.891 182
NO 19.83 7.218 249
Total 19.43 7.089 431
Total perceived stress YES 26.33 5.439 182

NO 27.04 6.134 249

Total 26.74 5.854 431

Box's Test of Equality of

Covariance Matricesa

Box's M 8.391
F 1.387
df1 6
df2 1047961.923
Sig. .215

Tests the null hypothesis that

the observed covariance
matrices of the dependent
variables are equal across
groups.
a. Design: Intercept + child

Multivariate Testsa

Partial Eta
Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Squared

Intercept Pillai's Trace .987 10709.010b 3.000 427.000 .000 .987

Wilks' Lambda .013 10709.010b 3.000 427.000 .000 .987

Hotelling's Trace 75.239 10709.010b 3.000 427.000 .000 .987

Roy's Largest Root 75.239 10709.010b 3.000 427.000 .000 .987

child Pillai's Trace .014 2.089b 3.000 427.000 .101 .014

Wilks' Lambda .986 2.089b 3.000 427.000 .101 .014

Hotelling's Trace .015 2.089b 3.000 427.000 .101 .014

Roy's Largest Root .015 2.089b 3.000 427.000 .101 .014

a. Design: Intercept + child
 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Type III Sum of Partial Eta

Source Dependent Variable Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Corrected Model Total positive affect 298.730a 1 298.730 5.748 .017 .013

b. Exact statistic Total negative affect 91.275b 1 91.275 1.820 .178 .004

Total perceived stress 52.479c 1 52.479 1.533 .216 .004

Intercept Total positive affect 480338.823 1 480338.823 9241.640 .000 .956
Total negative affect 157662.903 1 157662.903 3143.499 .000 .880
Total perceived stress 299446.855 1 299446.855 8747.949 .000 .953
child Total positive affect 298.730 1 298.730 5.748 .017 .013
Total negative affect 91.275 1 91.275 1.820 .178 .004
Total perceived stress 52.479 1 52.479 1.533 .216 .004
Error Total positive affect 22297.488 429 51.975
Total negative affect 21516.591 429 50.155
Total perceived stress 14684.894 429 34.231
Total Total positive affect 511021.000 431
Total negative affect 184386.000 431
Total perceived stress 322864.000 431
Corrected Total Total positive affect 22596.218 430

Total negative affect 21607.865 430

Total perceived stress 14737.374 430

a. R Squared = .013 (Adjusted R Squared = .011)

b. R Squared = .004 (Adjusted R Squared = .002)
c. R Squared = .004 (Adjusted R Squared = .001)

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

F df1 df2 Sig.

Total positive affect .002 1 429 .960

Total negative affect 1.010 1 429 .316
Total perceived stress 2.693 1 429 .102

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal
across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + child

Estimated Marginal Means

child
 95% Confidence Interval

Dependent Variable child Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

Total positive affect YES 34.637 .534 33.587 35.688

NO 32.952 .457 32.054 33.850

Total negative affect YES 18.896 .525 17.864 19.927
NO 19.827 .449 18.945 20.709
Total perceived stress YES 26.330 .434 25.477 27.182

NO 27.036 .371 26.307 27.765

A one-way between-group multivariate analysis of variance was performed to investigate with

child group and without child group. Three dependent variables were used: positive affect,
negative affect and perceived stress. The independent variable was with child group and without
child group. Preliminary assumption testing was conducted to check for normality, linearity,
univariate and multivariate outliers, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and
multicollinearity. There was no violation recorded. The Boxs Test of Equality of Covariance
Matrices indicates the Sig. value, p = .215, greater than .001, we have not violated the
assumption. The Levenes Test of Equality of Error Variances, all the sig. value greater than .05.

There was a statistically significant difference between with child group and without child group
on the combined variables, F (3, 427) = 2.089, p = .101. Wilks Lambda = .986; partial eta
squared = .014. Results analyzed separately indicated that there were not significant differences
between with child group and without child group to total negative affect and to total perceived
stress. However, there was a significant difference between with child group and without child
group to total positive effect, F (1, 429) = 5.748, p = .017, partial eta squared = .013. An
inspection of the mean scores indicated that the with child group have higher total positive affect
(M = 36.64, SD = 7.713) than without child group (M = 32.95, SD = 7.236).

c. Calculate and interpret an appropriate effect size

There was a significant difference between with child group and without child group to total
positive effect, partial eta squared = .013, is small effect size, it represent 1.3% of the variance in
positive affect scores explained by with child group and without child group.