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

More Related Content

What's hot

Reporting statistics in psychology
Reporting statistics in psychologyReporting statistics in psychology
Reporting statistics in psychology
Reiner-Vinicius
 
Reporting a partial correlation in apa
Reporting a partial correlation in apaReporting a partial correlation in apa
Reporting a partial correlation in apa
Ken Plummer
 

What's hot (20)

Reporting a single linear regression in apa
Reporting a single linear regression in apaReporting a single linear regression in apa
Reporting a single linear regression in apa
 
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 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 paired sample t test
Reporting a paired sample t testReporting a paired sample t test
Reporting a paired sample t test
 
Reporting pearson correlation in apa
Reporting pearson correlation in apa Reporting pearson correlation in apa
Reporting pearson correlation in apa
 
Reporting a Kruskal Wallis Test
Reporting a Kruskal Wallis TestReporting a Kruskal Wallis Test
Reporting a Kruskal Wallis Test
 
Reporting the wilcoxon signed ranks test
Reporting the wilcoxon signed ranks testReporting the wilcoxon signed ranks test
Reporting the wilcoxon signed ranks test
 
Null hypothesis for Mann Whitney U
Null hypothesis for Mann Whitney UNull hypothesis for Mann Whitney U
Null hypothesis for Mann Whitney U
 
Reporting statistics in psychology
Reporting statistics in psychologyReporting statistics in psychology
Reporting statistics in psychology
 
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
 
What is an ANCOVA?
What is an ANCOVA?What is an ANCOVA?
What is an ANCOVA?
 
Reporting a single sample t-test
Reporting a single sample t-testReporting a single sample t-test
Reporting a single sample t-test
 
Reporting a partial correlation in apa
Reporting a partial correlation in apaReporting a partial correlation in apa
Reporting a partial correlation in apa
 
What is a Factorial ANOVA?
What is a Factorial ANOVA?What is a Factorial ANOVA?
What is a Factorial ANOVA?
 
Reporting a paired sample t -test
Reporting a paired sample t -testReporting a paired sample t -test
Reporting a paired sample t -test
 
Reporting kendall's tau in apa
Reporting kendall's tau in apaReporting kendall's tau in apa
Reporting kendall's tau in apa
 
Mixed between-within groups ANOVA
Mixed between-within groups ANOVAMixed between-within groups ANOVA
Mixed between-within groups ANOVA
 
Null hypothesis for an ANCOVA
Null hypothesis for an ANCOVANull hypothesis for an ANCOVA
Null hypothesis for an ANCOVA
 
Repeated measures anova with spss
Repeated measures anova with spssRepeated measures anova with spss
Repeated measures anova with spss
 
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
 

More from Ken Plummer

More from 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)
 

Recently uploaded

The basics of sentences session 3pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 3pptx.pptxThe basics of sentences session 3pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 3pptx.pptx
heathfieldcps1
 
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
 

Recently uploaded (20)

The basics of sentences session 3pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 3pptx.pptxThe basics of sentences session 3pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 3pptx.pptx
 
Micro-Scholarship, What it is, How can it help me.pdf
Micro-Scholarship, What it is, How can it help me.pdfMicro-Scholarship, What it is, How can it help me.pdf
Micro-Scholarship, What it is, How can it help me.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
 
Making communications land - Are they received and understood as intended? we...
Making communications land - Are they received and understood as intended? we...Making communications land - Are they received and understood as intended? we...
Making communications land - Are they received and understood as intended? we...
 
Dyslexia AI Workshop for Slideshare.pptx
Dyslexia AI Workshop for Slideshare.pptxDyslexia AI Workshop for Slideshare.pptx
Dyslexia AI Workshop for Slideshare.pptx
 
Application orientated numerical on hev.ppt
Application orientated numerical on hev.pptApplication orientated numerical on hev.ppt
Application orientated numerical on hev.ppt
 
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...
 
Unit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptx
Unit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptxUnit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptx
Unit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptx
 
SKILL OF INTRODUCING THE LESSON MICRO SKILLS.pptx
SKILL OF INTRODUCING THE LESSON MICRO SKILLS.pptxSKILL OF INTRODUCING THE LESSON MICRO SKILLS.pptx
SKILL OF INTRODUCING THE LESSON MICRO SKILLS.pptx
 
PROCESS RECORDING FORMAT.docx
PROCESS      RECORDING        FORMAT.docxPROCESS      RECORDING        FORMAT.docx
PROCESS RECORDING FORMAT.docx
 
TỔNG ÔN TẬP THI VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH NĂM HỌC 2023 - 2024 CÓ ĐÁP ÁN (NGỮ Â...
TỔNG ÔN TẬP THI VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH NĂM HỌC 2023 - 2024 CÓ ĐÁP ÁN (NGỮ Â...TỔNG ÔN TẬP THI VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH NĂM HỌC 2023 - 2024 CÓ ĐÁP ÁN (NGỮ Â...
TỔNG ÔN TẬP THI VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH NĂM HỌC 2023 - 2024 CÓ ĐÁP ÁN (NGỮ Â...
 
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
 
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
 
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...
 
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...
 
Sociology 101 Demonstration of Learning Exhibit
Sociology 101 Demonstration of Learning ExhibitSociology 101 Demonstration of Learning Exhibit
Sociology 101 Demonstration of Learning Exhibit
 
How to Give a Domain for a Field in Odoo 17
How to Give a Domain for a Field in Odoo 17How to Give a Domain for a Field in Odoo 17
How to Give a Domain for a Field in Odoo 17
 
2024-NATIONAL-LEARNING-CAMP-AND-OTHER.pptx
2024-NATIONAL-LEARNING-CAMP-AND-OTHER.pptx2024-NATIONAL-LEARNING-CAMP-AND-OTHER.pptx
2024-NATIONAL-LEARNING-CAMP-AND-OTHER.pptx
 
microwave assisted reaction. General introduction
microwave assisted reaction. General introductionmicrowave assisted reaction. General introduction
microwave assisted reaction. General introduction
 
Understanding Accommodations and Modifications
Understanding  Accommodations and ModificationsUnderstanding  Accommodations and Modifications
Understanding Accommodations and Modifications
 

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