kinesiology

Results

Analysis via repeated measures ANOVA showed significant differences in mean math test performance between resistance and non-exercise (F1,62 = 4.50, p = .038, η2 = .068). Differences in mean math test performance were statistically insignificant between aerobic exercise and non-exercise (F1,62 = 2.43, p = .124, η2 = .04), and aerobic exercise and resistance exercise (F1,62 = .214, p = .645, η2 = .003). See Figure 1 for illustrated results. Comment by Andrew Harveson: The statistical test is identified, followed by a reporting of the results of that test. Comment by Andrew Harveson: Tables and Figures can be used to help tell the story of your findings.

Figure 1. Mathematics performance following aerobic exercise (AE), resistance exercise (RE), and non-exercise (NE). * denotes statistical significance (p < 0.05)

Secondary analysis using repeated measures ANOVAs revealed significant differences in mean scores between resistance exercise and non-exercise in the Stroop Dot test (F1,62 = 8.14, p = .006, η2 = .116), Stroop Word test (F1,62 = 9.90, p = .003, η2 = .138), and Stroop Color test (F1,62 = 7.57, p = .008, η2 = .109). Significant differences in mean scores were also found between resistance exercise and aerobic exercise in the Stroop Dot test (F1,61 = 25.82, p < .001, η2 = .294), Stroop Word test (F1,62 = 14.73, p < .001, η2 = .192), and Stroop Color test (F1,62 = 20.14, p < .001, η2 = .245). There were no significant differences between aerobic exercise and non-exercise across any of the Stroop Test elements. See Figure 2 for illustrated results. Comment by Andrew Harveson: Notice that the results section does not try to explain why or how the results were found, it simply reports what was found.

Figure 2. Time to complete Stroop Dot, Word, and Color tests following various exercise types. * denotes statistical significance (p < .05)