Part 2 of SPSS
Liberty University SOE 04-20-2018
Note: This is an example only. You will need to expand on each section. This example should only be used as a guide and for correct format. Refer to the end of each chapter in your textbooks and the Dissertation Handbook on how to write up the findings section. Remember to put the information in your own words in order to avoid plagiarism.
Group # Write-up: Assignment Name
by
Group Members
Liberty University
Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for EDUC 812
Liberty University
Year
Findings
Research Question
The research question for this study was:
RQ1: Is there a difference in learning attitude among traditional, adult, and senior vocational learners at a Northwestern public college?
The null hypothesis for this study was:
H01: There is no significant difference in learning attitude as measure by the Learning Attitude Learning Inventory among traditional, adult, and senior vocational learners at a Northwestern public college.
Data obtained for the dependent variable learning attitude for traditional, adult, and senior learners can be found in Table 1.
Table 1.
Descriptive Statistics Comment by Jillian Wendt: Note how this table is formatted. This is the correct APA formatting. While SPSS does have options for cutting and pasting tables in APA format, the formatting is often not aligned with APA 6th Edition guidelines. Thus, it is essential for you to type out your tables according to APA 6th Edition guideslines, such as the example shown here.
Group M SD N
TL 18.70 2.91 10 Comment by Jillian Wendt: If using abbreviations, make sure that you define your abbreviations in-text prior to presenting them in a table.
AL 19.67 1.73 9
SL 22.82 4.47 11
Total 20.50 3.70 30
Results
Data screening
Data screening was conducted on each group’s dependent variables (TL, AL, SL attitude) regarding data inconsistencies and outliers. The researcher sorted the data on each variable and scanned for inconsistencies. No data errors or inconsistencies were identified. Box and whiskers plots were used to detect outliers on each dependent variable. No outliers were identified. See Figure 1 for box and whisker plot.
|
Tests of Normality |
|||||||
|
|
Group |
Kolmogorov-Smirnova |
Shapiro-Wilk |
||||
|
|
|
Statistic |
df |
Sig. |
Statistic |
df |
Sig. |
|
Score |
TL |
.179 |
10 |
.200* |
.883 |
10 |
.140 |
|
|
AL |
.224 |
9 |
.200* |
.921 |
9 |
.399 |
|
|
SL |
.105 |
11 |
.200* |
.958 |
11 |
.751 |
|
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance. |
|||||||
|
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction |
Figure 1. Box and Whisker Plot for Traditional, Adult, and Senior Learners.
Assumptions
An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test the first null hypothesis that looked at the differences among type of learner and their learning attitudes. The ANOVA required that the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance are met. Normality was examined using a Shapiro-Wilk test. Shapiro-Wilk was used because the sample size was less than 50. No violations of normality were found. See Table 2 for Shapiro-Wilk test.
Table 2.
Tests of Normality
Group Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Significance
TL .88 10 .14
AL .92 9 .40
SL .89 11 .15
The assumption of homogeneity of variance was examined using the Levene’s test. A violation was found (p = .009) so the assumption of homogeneity was not met. However, the ANOVA is considered a robust test against the homogeneity assumption (Warner, 2013, p. 474). For this reason, the researcher continued with the analysis. See Table 3 for Levene’s Test.
Table 3.
Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variance
F df1 df2 Significance
5.65 2 27 .01
Results for Null Hypothesis One
An ANOVA was used to test the first null hypothesis; the differences in learning attitude among traditional, adult, and senior vocational learners. The first null hypothesis was rejected at a 95% confidence level were F(2, 27) = 4.40, p = .02, 2 = .25. The effect size was very large. See Table 4 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects.
Table 4.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Source Type III Sum of df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta
Squares Squared
Corrected 97.76 2 48.88 4.40 .02 .25
Model
Intercept 12395.15 1 12395.15 1116.55 .00 .98
Group 97.76 2 48.88 4.40 .02 .25
Error 13005.00 30
Corrected 397.50 29
Total
Because the null was rejected, post hoc analysis was conducted using a Tukey Test HSD. There was a significant difference between the attitude scores of traditional (M = 18.7, SD = 2.9) and senior (M = 22.8, SD = 4.5) vocational learners (p = .02). See Table 5 for Multiple Comparisons Groups.
Multiple Comparisons
(I) Group (J) Group Mean Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
Difference Lower Bound Upper Bound
TL AL -.97 1.53 .80 -4.76 2.83
SL -4.12 1.45 .02 -7.73 -.51
AL TL .97 1.53 .80 -2.83 4.76
SL -3.15 1.50 .11 -6.86 .56
SL TL 4.12 1.46 .02 .51 7.73
AL 3.15 1.50 .11 -.56 6.86
|
|