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

What's hot (20)

Reporting a Factorial ANOVA
Reporting a Factorial ANOVAReporting a Factorial ANOVA
Reporting a Factorial ANOVA
 
Reporting an independent sample t test
Reporting an independent sample t testReporting an independent sample t test
Reporting an independent sample t test
 
Reporting Pearson Correlation Test of Independence in APA
Reporting Pearson Correlation Test of Independence in APAReporting Pearson Correlation Test of Independence in APA
Reporting Pearson Correlation Test of Independence in APA
 
Reporting Mann Whitney U Test in APA
Reporting Mann Whitney U Test in APAReporting Mann Whitney U Test in APA
Reporting Mann Whitney U Test in APA
 
Reporting the wilcoxon signed ranks test
Reporting the wilcoxon signed ranks testReporting the wilcoxon signed ranks test
Reporting the wilcoxon signed ranks test
 
Reporting an independent sample t- test
Reporting an independent sample t- testReporting an independent sample t- test
Reporting an independent sample t- test
 
Reporting Chi Square Test of Independence in APA
Reporting Chi Square Test of Independence in APAReporting Chi Square Test of Independence in APA
Reporting Chi Square Test of Independence 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 partial correlation in apa
Reporting a partial correlation in apaReporting a partial correlation in apa
Reporting a partial correlation in apa
 
What is an ANCOVA?
What is an ANCOVA?What is an ANCOVA?
What is an ANCOVA?
 
What is a Factorial ANOVA?
What is a Factorial ANOVA?What is a Factorial ANOVA?
What is a Factorial ANOVA?
 
Reporting a single sample t-test
Reporting a single sample t-testReporting a single sample t-test
Reporting a single sample t-test
 
Reporting statistics in psychology
Reporting statistics in psychologyReporting statistics in psychology
Reporting statistics in psychology
 
Null hypothesis for a Factorial ANOVA
Null hypothesis for a Factorial ANOVANull hypothesis for a Factorial ANOVA
Null hypothesis for a Factorial ANOVA
 
Reporting pearson correlation in apa
Reporting pearson correlation in apa Reporting pearson correlation in apa
Reporting pearson correlation 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 paired sample t -test
Reporting a paired sample t -testReporting a paired sample t -test
Reporting a paired sample t -test
 
Tutorial repeated measures ANOVA
Tutorial   repeated measures ANOVATutorial   repeated measures ANOVA
Tutorial repeated measures ANOVA
 
Reporting a Kruskal Wallis Test
Reporting a Kruskal Wallis TestReporting a Kruskal Wallis Test
Reporting a Kruskal Wallis Test
 
Null hypothesis for Mann Whitney U
Null hypothesis for Mann Whitney UNull hypothesis for Mann Whitney U
Null hypothesis for Mann Whitney U
 

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 2pptx copy.pptx
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptxThe basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
heathfieldcps1
 
Gardella_PRCampaignConclusion Pitch Letter
Gardella_PRCampaignConclusion Pitch LetterGardella_PRCampaignConclusion Pitch Letter
Gardella_PRCampaignConclusion Pitch Letter
MateoGardella
 
1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi 6.pdf
1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi  6.pdf1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi  6.pdf
1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi 6.pdf
QucHHunhnh
 

Recently uploaded (20)

psychiatric nursing HISTORY COLLECTION .docx
psychiatric  nursing HISTORY  COLLECTION  .docxpsychiatric  nursing HISTORY  COLLECTION  .docx
psychiatric nursing HISTORY COLLECTION .docx
 
microwave assisted reaction. General introduction
microwave assisted reaction. General introductionmicrowave assisted reaction. General introduction
microwave assisted reaction. General introduction
 
Introduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The Basics
Introduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The BasicsIntroduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The Basics
Introduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The Basics
 
Measures of Central Tendency: Mean, Median and Mode
Measures of Central Tendency: Mean, Median and ModeMeasures of Central Tendency: Mean, Median and Mode
Measures of Central Tendency: Mean, Median and Mode
 
APM Welcome, APM North West Network Conference, Synergies Across Sectors
APM Welcome, APM North West Network Conference, Synergies Across SectorsAPM Welcome, APM North West Network Conference, Synergies Across Sectors
APM Welcome, APM North West Network Conference, Synergies Across Sectors
 
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptxThe basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
 
Paris 2024 Olympic Geographies - an activity
Paris 2024 Olympic Geographies - an activityParis 2024 Olympic Geographies - an activity
Paris 2024 Olympic Geographies - an activity
 
Unit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptx
Unit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptxUnit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptx
Unit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptx
 
Gardella_PRCampaignConclusion Pitch Letter
Gardella_PRCampaignConclusion Pitch LetterGardella_PRCampaignConclusion Pitch Letter
Gardella_PRCampaignConclusion Pitch Letter
 
Grant Readiness 101 TechSoup and Remy Consulting
Grant Readiness 101 TechSoup and Remy ConsultingGrant Readiness 101 TechSoup and Remy Consulting
Grant Readiness 101 TechSoup and Remy Consulting
 
Z Score,T Score, Percential Rank and Box Plot Graph
Z Score,T Score, Percential Rank and Box Plot GraphZ Score,T Score, Percential Rank and Box Plot Graph
Z Score,T Score, Percential Rank and Box Plot Graph
 
Application orientated numerical on hev.ppt
Application orientated numerical on hev.pptApplication orientated numerical on hev.ppt
Application orientated numerical on hev.ppt
 
Advanced Views - Calendar View in Odoo 17
Advanced Views - Calendar View in Odoo 17Advanced Views - Calendar View in Odoo 17
Advanced Views - Calendar View in Odoo 17
 
Unit-V; Pricing (Pharma Marketing Management).pptx
Unit-V; Pricing (Pharma Marketing Management).pptxUnit-V; Pricing (Pharma Marketing Management).pptx
Unit-V; Pricing (Pharma Marketing Management).pptx
 
ICT Role in 21st Century Education & its Challenges.pptx
ICT Role in 21st Century Education & its Challenges.pptxICT Role in 21st Century Education & its Challenges.pptx
ICT Role in 21st Century Education & its Challenges.pptx
 
Mattingly "AI & Prompt Design: The Basics of Prompt Design"
Mattingly "AI & Prompt Design: The Basics of Prompt Design"Mattingly "AI & Prompt Design: The Basics of Prompt Design"
Mattingly "AI & Prompt Design: The Basics of Prompt Design"
 
Holdier Curriculum Vitae (April 2024).pdf
Holdier Curriculum Vitae (April 2024).pdfHoldier Curriculum Vitae (April 2024).pdf
Holdier Curriculum Vitae (April 2024).pdf
 
1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi 6.pdf
1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi  6.pdf1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi  6.pdf
1029-Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa khoi 6.pdf
 
INDIA QUIZ 2024 RLAC DELHI UNIVERSITY.pptx
INDIA QUIZ 2024 RLAC DELHI UNIVERSITY.pptxINDIA QUIZ 2024 RLAC DELHI UNIVERSITY.pptx
INDIA QUIZ 2024 RLAC DELHI UNIVERSITY.pptx
 
Código Creativo y Arte de Software | Unidad 1
Código Creativo y Arte de Software | Unidad 1Código Creativo y Arte de Software | Unidad 1
Código Creativo y Arte de Software | Unidad 1
 

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