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.”

8. Reporting Results using APA

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