Answer Key for Exercises
Exercises-Chapter 1
1.1
A variety of topics appear under ANOVA. A summary is below. You
should look at some of the topics in more detail.
1
1.2
I found 2 sets of information: one for categorical or nominal data and another
for continuous data. Clicking on either one gave me suggestions about appropriate
types of analyses to run given these types of data.
1.3
This will change the view in the Data Editor. When it is checked each piece
of data is in a cell (surrounded by lines), when it is not checked, the cells are not
divided by lines.
1.4
This is a matter of personal preference. There is no right answer.
1.5
This is a matter of personal preference. There is no right answer.
Exercises-Chapter 2
2.1
A sample of labels and values follows.
2.2
A sample of the correct data file follows.
2
2.3
Answers will vary depending on how you created your own data file.
Remember to compare your file to Exercise2.2.sav on the CD.
2.4
To perform this exercise accurately, you would have used the merge/add
cases option. The only way you would know this is by opening the 2 original files
and looking at them. You can see both include the same variables, but include the
data from different people. The merged file will include 90 cases.
2.5
To do this effectively, you would need to have noticed that the variable
names were included at the top of the file and that commas delimited the data. A
sample of the correct data file follows.
3
2.6
All of the original variable names were longer than 8 characters, so I renamed
them before reading them into EXCEL so they wouldn’t end up with generic or
truncated names. A sample data file follows.
4
Exercises-Chapter 3
3.1
A histogram for ADDSC follows.
ADD score in elementary school
30
20
Frequency
10
Std. Dev = 12.42
Mean = 52.6
N = 88.00
0
25.0
35.0
30.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
65.0
60.0
75.0
70.0
85.0
80.0
ADD score in elementary s chool
3.2
The box plots follow. It appears that students with social problems have
more ADD symptoms than students without social problems. The distribution
appears more normally distributed for students with no social problems. The
distribution for students with social problems appears positively skewed. Neither
group has outliers.
5
90
ADD score in elementary school
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
N=
78
10
no social problems
y es, social problems
social problems in 9th grade
3.3
A sample scatter plot follows. There appears to be a negative association
between GPA and ADD symptoms.
4.5
4.0
Grade point average in 9th grade
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
.5
20
30
40
50
ADD score in elementary s chool
6
60
70
80
90
3.4
A sample bar chart follows. It looks as if GPA differs between the 3 groups
such that students in the college prep course have higher GPAs than students in
general or remedial English, and students in general English have higher GPAs than
students in remedial English. [Of course, we would need to compute some
inferential statistics to see if these differences are statistically significant.]
3.2
Mean Grade point average in 9th grade
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
college prep
general
remedial
level of English in 9th grade
3.5
The 2 graphs follow. It looks like there is a main effect of type of English
class as described above. It also looks like there is a main effect of gender such that
females have higher GPAs than males. I would guess there is an interaction effect
such that the gender difference in GPA is greatest among students in college prep
English. I like the line graph better because I think it is easier to visualize interaction
effects with a line graph than a bar graph.
7
Mean Grade point average in 9th grade
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
gender
male
1.5
f emale
college prep
general
remedial
level of English in 9th grade
Mean Grade point average in 9th grade
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
gender
male
1.5
f emale
college prep
general
level of English in 9th grade
8
remedial
Exercises-Chapter 4
4.1
The output follows. I used Analyze/Descriptive Statistics/Frequencies to
calculate these descriptives because it includes all of the options including the
histogram.
Frequencies
Statistics
N
Valid
Mis sing
Mean
Median
Mode
Std. Deviation
Variance
Range
self es teem
50
0
3.4933
3.6667
4.00
.5139
.2641
2.17
anxiety score coping score
48
50
2
0
3.8558
2.0856
4.0000
1.9688
a
3.50
1.76a
.7337
.5570
.5383
.3102
2.75
2.53
a. Multiple modes exis t. The smalles t value is shown
Histogram
9
health score
50
0
3.0249
3.0000
3.00
.6146
.3777
2.72
anxiety score
14
12
10
8
6
Frequency
4
Std. Dev = .73
2
Mean = 3.86
N = 48.00
0
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
anxiety score
10
4.2
I calculated these frequencies using Analyze/Descriptive Statistics/Crosstabs.
The results follow.
ge nde r * socia l proble ms in 9th grade Crossta bul ation
gender
male
female
Total
social problems in 9th
grade
no soc ial
yes, social
problems
problems
48
7
87.3%
12.7%
30
3
90.9%
9.1%
78
10
88.6%
11.4%
Count
% within gender
Count
% within gender
Count
% within gender
Total
55
100.0%
33
100.0%
88
100.0%
4.3
The output follows. I calculated them by using Analyze/Compare
Means/Means.
Re port
Grade point average in 9th grade
social problems in
dropped out of
9th soc
grade
highnot
sc hool
no
ial problems
did
drop out
dropped out of
high sc hool
Total
yes, s ocial problems did not drop out
dropped out of
high sc hool
Total
Total
did not drop out
dropped out of
high sc hool
Total
Mean
2.5293
73
St d. Deviation
.8744
Variance
.764
1.5340
5
.6171
.381
2.4655
2.3500
78
5
.8915
.8023
.795
.644
2.4180
5
.4218
.178
2.3840
2.5178
10
78
.6054
.8662
.366
.750
1.9760
10
.6822
.465
2.4562
88
.8614
.742
11
N
Exercises-Chapter 5
5.1
The two-tailed correlations follow. Using a one-tailed versus a two-tailed
test did not matter in this case because all of the correlations are statistically
significant at the p<.01 level. This would make a difference if correlation were
marginally significant. For example, if a p value is .10 as a two-tailed test, it would
be non-significant. The same correlation would be significant as a one-tailed test.
Correlations
ADD score in
elementary school
IQ score
Grade point average
in 9th grade
grade in ninth grade
English
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
ADD score in
Grade point
elementary
average in
grade in ninth
school
IQ score
9th grade
grade English
1.000
-.632**
-.615**
-.478**
.
.000
.000
.000
88
88
88
88
-.632**
1.000
.497**
.370**
.000
.
.000
.000
88
88
88
88
-.615**
.497**
1.000
.839**
.000
.000
.
.000
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
88
88
88
-.478**
.000
88
.370**
.000
88
.839**
.000
88
88
1.000
.
88
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
5.2
The output follow. All of the correlations are quite different between the two
groups accept the correlation between GPA and grade in 9th grade English, which
correlate positively in both groups.
12
dropped out of high school = did not drop out
Correlationsa
ADD score in
elementary school
IQ score
Grade point average
in 9th grade
grade in ninth grade
English
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
ADD score in
Grade point
elementary
average in
grade in ninth
school
IQ score
9th grade
grade English
1.000
-.614**
-.625**
-.493**
.
.000
.000
.000
78
78
78
78
-.614**
1.000
.491**
.365**
.000
.
.000
.001
78
78
78
78
-.625**
.491**
1.000
.836**
.000
.000
.
.000
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
78
78
78
-.493**
.000
78
.365**
.001
78
.836**
.000
78
78
1.000
.
78
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
a. dropped out of high s chool = did not drop out
dropped out of high school = dropped out of high school
13
Correlationsa
ADD score in
elementary school
IQ score
Grade point average
in 9th grade
grade in ninth grade
English
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
ADD score in
elementary
school
1.000
.
10
-.137
.706
10
-.216
.548
IQ score
-.137
.706
10
1.000
.
10
.020
.955
Grade point
average in
9th grade
-.216
.548
10
.020
.955
10
1.000
.
10
10
10
.036
.921
10
-.156
.667
10
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
a. dropped out of high s chool = dropped out of high school
14
.825**
.003
10
grade in ninth
grade English
.036
.921
10
-.156
.667
10
.825**
.003
10
1.000
.
10
5.3
A sample scatter plot follows.
4.5
4.0
Grade point average in 9th grade
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
dropped out of high
1.5
dropped out of high
1.0
school
.5
did not drop out
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
IQ score
5.4
A sample scatterplot follows. It appears that both instructor knowledge and
teaching skill are positively correlated with fairness of the exam.
15
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
EXAM
KNOWLEDG
2.0
EXAM
1.5
2.0
TEACH
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Exercises-Chapter 6
6.1
The regression output follows.
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.301a
R Square
.090
Adjusted
R Square
.072
a. Predictors: (Constant), GRADE
16
Std. Error of
the Estimate
.59
5.5
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regres sion
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
1.669
16.776
18.445
df
Mean Square
1.669
.350
1
48
49
F
4.775
Sig.
.034a
a. Predic tors: (Constant), GRADE
b. Dependent Variable: OVERALL
Coefficientsa
Model
1
(Constant)
GRADE
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
1.718
.843
.526
.241
a. Dependent Variable: OVERALL
17
Standardi
zed
Coefficien
ts
Beta
.301
t
2.038
2.185
Sig.
.047
.034
6.2
A sample of the predicted values and residuals follows. They are the last 2
columns.
6.3
The regression output follows. It is consistent with the output in Table 11.6
of the textbook.
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.813a
R Square
.661
Adjusted
R Square
.653
Std. Error of
the Estimate
13.98
a. Predictors: (Constant), HEIGHT, SEX
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regres sion
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
33886. 657
17397. 213
51283. 870
df
2
89
91
Mean Square
16943. 328
195.474
a. Predic tors: (Constant), HEIGHT, SEX
b. Dependent Variable: W EIGHT
18
F
86.678
Sig.
.000a
Coeffi cientsa
Model
1
(Const ant)
SEX
HEIGHT
Unstandardized
Coeffic ients
B
St d. Error
-88.199
43.777
-14.700
4.290
3.691
.572
St andardi
zed
Coeffic ien
ts
Beta
-.302
.569
t
-2. 015
-3. 426
6.450
Sig.
.047
.001
.000
a. Dependent Variable: W EIGHT
6.4
The regression output follows. These results are consistent with those
presented in Table 11.7 in the textbook.
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.659a
R Square
.435
Adjusted
R Square
.411
Std. Error of
the Estimate
7.66
a. Predictors: (Constant), BLAMBEH, DISTRES1,
BLAMPER
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regres sion
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
3161.406
4107.581
7268.986
df
3
70
73
Mean Square
1053.802
58.680
a. Predic tors: (Constant), BLAMBEH, DISTRES1, BLAMPER
b. Dependent Variable: DISTRES2
19
F
17.959
Sig.
.000a
Coeffi cientsa
Model
1
Unstandardized
Coeffic ients
B
St d. Error
14.052
5.782
.640
.103
2.451
1.048
.272
.990
(Const ant)
DISTRES1
BLAMPER
BLAMBEH
St andardi
zed
Coeffic ien
ts
Beta
t
2.430
6.184
2.338
.275
.564
.247
.029
Sig.
.018
.000
.022
.784
a. Dependent Variable: DISTRES2
Exercises-Chapter 7
7.1
The output from a single sample t-test follow. They suggest that students
who did not read the passage got more answers correct than you would expect by
chance, consistent with the conclusion drawn in the textbook.
One-Sample Statistics
N
score in no
passage group
Mean
28
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
6.83
1.29
46.57
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 20
t
score in no
passage group
7.2
20.591
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
.000
26.57
27
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
23.92
29.22
The output follows. They are consistent with the results in the textbook.
20
Paired Samples Statistics
Pair
1
ELEVATE
LEVEL
Mean
1.4820
1.4630
N
Std. Deviation
.3742
.3407
10
10
Std. Error
Mean
.1183
.1077
Pa ired Sa mpl es Corre lati ons
N
Pair 1
ELEVATE & LEVEL
10
Correlation
.931
Sig.
.000
Pa ired Sa mpl es Test
Mean
Pair
1
ELEVATE
- LEVEL
1.9E-02
Paired Differences
95% Confidenc e
Int erval of t he
St d.
Difference
Deviati St d. Error
on
Mean
Lower
Upper
.1371
4.337E-02
21
-7. 91E-02
.1171
t
.438
Sig.
(2-tail
ed)
df
9
.672
7.3
A sample bar graph follows.
1.49
1.48
Mean
1.47
1.46
ELEVATE
7.4
LEVEL
A boxplot follows. It is similar to the one in the textbook in Figure 14.3.
22
16
14
12
10
8
6
LATENCY
4
2
0
N=
15
20
Low status
High status
GROUP
7.5
The output follows. The results are consistent with the textbook except that
our t is positive. Either way, the difference between the 2 groups is statistically
significant.
Group Statistics
weight gain
GROUP
family therapy
control group
N
Mean
7.26
-.45
17
26
Std. Deviation
7.16
7.99
Std. Error
Mean
1.74
1.57
Indepe nde nt Sam ples Te st
Levene's
Test for
Equalit y of
Variances
F
weight gain
Equal variances
as sumed
Equal variances
not ass umed
t-test for Equality of Means
t
.557
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
St d. Error
Difference
1.676
53
.100
3.46
2.06
1.668
50.971
.101
3.46
2.07
23
7.6
The t-tests follow. After making all 3 possible comparisons, it seems that the
family therapy group is the one that is most effective because it is the only one for
which weight gain was significantly higher than the control group.
T-Test
Group Statistics
weight gain
GROUP
cognitive therapy
family therapy
N
Mean
3.01
7.26
29
17
Std. Deviation
7.31
7.16
Std. Error
Mean
1.36
1.74
Independent Sam ple s Te st
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
weight gain
Equal variances
as sumed
Equal variances
not as sumed
.016
t-t est for Equality of Means
Sig.
Mean
(2-tail
Differen
df
ed)
ce
St d. Error
Difference
Sig.
t
.898
-1. 922
44
.061
-4. 26
2.22
-1. 932
34.229
.062
-4. 26
2.20
T-Test
24
Group Statistics
weight gain
GROUP
cognitive therapy
control group
N
29
26
Mean
3.01
-.45
Std. Deviation
7.31
7.99
Std. Error
Mean
1.36
1.57
Indepe nde nt Sam ple s Te st
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
F
weight gain
7.7
Equal variances
as sumed
Equal variances
not ass umed
.557
Sig.
.459
t-test for Equality of Means
t
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Differ
ence
St d. Error
Difference
1.676
53
.100
3.46
2.06
1.668
50.971
.101
3.46
2.07
A sample bar graph follows.
25
8
6
4
Mean weight gain
2
0
-2
cognitiv e therapy
f amily therapy
control group
GROUP
Exercises-Chapter 8
8.1
The results follow. They indicate that there is a significant difference in
recall based on condition. Specifically, people in the counting and rhyming
conditions had significantly lower recall than all other groups.
ANOVA
RECALL
Between Groups
W ithin Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
351.520
435.300
786.820
df
4
45
49
Mean Square
87.880
9.673
Post Hoc Tests
26
F
9.085
Sig.
.000
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: RECALL
LSD
(I) GROUP
Counting
Rhyming
Adjective
Imagery
Intentional
(J) GROUP
Rhyming
Adjective
Imagery
Intentional
Counting
Adjective
Imagery
Intentional
Counting
Rhyming
Imagery
Intentional
Counting
Rhyming
Adjective
Intentional
Counting
Rhyming
Adjective
Imagery
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
1.00E-01
-4.00*
-6.40*
-5.00*
-1.00E-01
-4.10*
-6.50*
-5.10*
4.00*
4.10*
-2.40
-1.00
6.40*
6.50*
2.40
1.40
5.00*
5.10*
1.00
-1.40
Std. Error
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
Sig.
.943
.006
.000
.001
.943
.005
.000
.001
.006
.005
.091
.476
.000
.000
.091
.320
.001
.001
.476
.320
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
-2.70
2.90
-6.80
-1.20
-9.20
-3.60
-7.80
-2.20
-2.90
2.70
-6.90
-1.30
-9.30
-3.70
-7.90
-2.30
1.20
6.80
1.30
6.90
-5.20
.40
-3.80
1.80
3.60
9.20
3.70
9.30
-.40
5.20
-1.40
4.20
2.20
7.80
2.30
7.90
-1.80
3.80
-4.20
1.40
*. The mean difference is s ignificant at the .05 level.
8.2
An edited ANOVA summary table follows.
ANOVA
RE CALL
Su m of Squa res
df
Me an S quare
Be tween Gro ups
351 .520
4
87. 880
Wit hin G roup s
435 .300
45
9.6 73
To tal
786 .820
49
27
F
9.0 85
Sig .
.00 0
8.3
I calculated eta squared through Analyze/Compare Means/Means. I could
have calculated it also through General Linear Model/Univariate.
Me asures of Association
RECALL * GROUP
8.4
Et a
.668
Et a Squared
.447
A sample bar chart follows.
14
12
Mean RECALL
10
8
6
Counting
Rhy ming
Adjectiv e
GROUP
28
Imagery
Intentional
Exercises-Chapter 9
9.1
The output follows. You need to calculate your own F values by dividing the
mean square for groups by the mean square error from the original analysis (8.026).
When you do so, the F values are: .16, .31, 9.00, 10.99, and 33.20, for counting,
rhyming, adjective, imagery and intentions respectively consistent with the values
reported in the textbook.
CONDITIO = Counting
ANOVAa
RECALL
Between Groups
W ithin Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
1.250
48.500
49.750
df
1
18
19
Mean Square
1.250
2.694
F
.464
Sig.
.504
F
.586
Sig.
.454
a. CONDITIO = Count ing
CONDITIO = Rhyming
ANOVAa
RECALL
Between Groups
W ithin Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
2.450
75.300
77.750
df
1
18
19
Mean Square
2.450
4.183
a. CONDITIO = Rhyming
29
CONDITIO = Adjective
ANOVAa
RECALL
Between Groups
W ithin Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
72.200
165.600
237.800
df
1
18
19
Mean Square
72.200
9.200
F
7.848
Sig.
.012
F
6.539
Sig.
.020
a. CONDITIO = Adject ive
CONDITIO = Imagery
ANOVAa
RECALL
Between Groups
W ithin Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
88.200
242.800
331.000
df
1
18
19
Mean Square
88.200
13.489
a. CONDITIO = Imagery
CONDITIO = Intentional
30
ANOVAa
RECALL
Between Groups
W ithin Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
266.450
190.100
456.550
df
1
18
19
Mean Square
266.450
10.561
a. CONDITIO = Intentional
31
F
25.229
Sig.
.000
9.2
The output follows. These results are consistent with those in the textbook.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: maternal role adaptation
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
GROUP
EDUCATIO
GROUP * EDUCATIO
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sum
of Squares
210.854a
12707.521
122.792
67.688
20.375
444.625
13363.000
655.479
df
5
1
2
1
2
42
48
47
Mean Square
42.171
12707.521
61.396
67.688
10.188
10.586
F
3.984
1200.373
5.800
6.394
.962
a. R Squared = .322 (Adjus ted R Squared = .241)
9.3
A sample graph follows.
22
Adaptation
20
18
16
Education Level
14
< than high school
>than high s chool
12
LBW-Exp
LBW-Cntrl
GROUP
32
Full Term
Sig.
.005
.000
.006
.015
.390
33
Exercises-Chapter 10
10.1 The within subjects output follows. The results are consistent with the
textbook
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source
FACTOR1
Error(FAC
TOR1)
Type III
Sum of
Squares
Sphericity
As sumed
Greenhous eGeisser
Huynh-Feldt
Lower-bound
Sphericity
As sumed
Greenhous eGeisser
Huynh-Feldt
Lower-bound
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Eta
Squa
red
351.520
4
87.880
20.218
.000
.692
351.520
2.051
171.394
20.218
.000
.692
351.520
351.520
2.664
1.000
131.972
351.520
20.218
20.218
.000
.001
.692
.692
156.480
36
4.347
156.480
18.459
8.477
156.480
156.480
23.972
9.000
6.528
17.387
10.2
Eta squared is included in the previous output.
10.3
A sample graph follows.
34
14
12
10
Mean
8
6
COUNT
RHYMING
ADJECTIV
IMAGERY
INTENT
10.4 I calculated the new variable, lowproc. Then, I used a paired t-test to
compare recall in the imagery and lowproc conditions. I did this because I knew it
would calculate the mean difference for me. Then, I used the protected t-test
explained in the text using the MSerror from the original analysis (see answer to
exercise 1). The resulting t-value is 3.82, which is statistically significant with 9 df.
Thus, recall was better in the imagery group than in the lower processing conditions.
Paired Samples Statistics
Pair
1
IMAGERY
LOWPROC
Mean
13.40
9.2250
N
10
10
Std. Deviation
4.50
2.1745
Std. Error
Mean
1.42
.6876
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
Pair 1
IMAGERY - LOWPROC
Mean
4.1750
Std. Deviation
3.2017
35
Std. Error
Mean
1.0125
t
4.124
df
9
Sig.
(2-tail
ed)
.003
Exercises-Chapter 11
11.1
The output follow. They are consistent with the data in the text.
ALLEY
A
B
C
D
Total
Observed N
4
5
8
15
32
Ex pec ted N
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Residual
-4. 0
-3. 0
.0
7.0
Te st Statistics
Chi-Squarea
df
As ymp. Sig.
ALLEY
9.250
3
.026
a. 0 c ells (.0% ) have expected frequencies les s than
5. The minimum ex pec ted cell frequenc y is 8.0.
11.2
The output follows. The results support the hypothesis.
RATING
not at all like me
somewhat unlike me
neither like me or
unlike me
somewhat like me
very much like me
Total
Observed N
8
10
Expected N
5.0
10.0
Residual
3.0
.0
20
20.0
.0
8
4
50
10.0
5.0
-2.0
-1.0
36
Te st Statistics
Chi-Squarea
df
As ymp. Sig.
RATING
2.400
4
.663
a. 0 c ells (.0% ) have expected frequencies les s than
5. The minimum ex pec ted cell frequenc y is 5.0.
11.3
A sample data file follows.
37
11.4
The results follow. They are consistent with the textbook.
BYSTANDE * ASSIST Crossta bul ation
ASSIST
yes
BYSTANDE .00
1.00
4.00
Total
Count
Ex pec ted
Count
Ex pec ted
Count
Ex pec ted
Count
Ex pec ted
no
11
7.8
16
15.5
4
7.8
31
31.0
Count
Count
Count
Count
2
5.3
10
10.5
9
5.3
21
21.0
Total
13
13.0
26
26.0
13
13.0
52
52.0
Chi-Square Te sts
Pearson Chi-Square
Lik elihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
As soc iation
N of Valid Cases
Value
7.908a
8.295
7.321
2
2
As ymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.019
.016
1
.007
df
52
a. 0 c ells (.0% ) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 5.25.
Exercises-Chapter 12
12.1 The output follows. The z score is the same as the text, but the Ws are
different. In both cases, the results suggest that there is a significant difference
between groups. (Note: SPSS chooses to work with the sum of the scores in the
larger group (71), and thus n1 and n2 are reversed. This will give you the same z
score, with the sign reversed. Notice that z in the output agrees with z in the text.)
38
Ranks
BIRTHWEI
GROUP
1
2
Total
N
10
8
18
Mean Rank
7.10
12.50
Sum of Ranks
71.00
100.00
Test Statisticsb
Mann-Whitney U
Wilcoxon W
Z
As ymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed
Sig.)]
BIRTHWEI
16.000
71.000
-2.132
.033
a
.034
a. Not corrected for ties.
b. Grouping Variable: GROUP
12.2 The output follows. There appears to be a significant increase in weight over
the course of family therapy.
Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
39
Kruskal-Wallis Test
Ra
weight after family
therapy - weight
before family therapy
Negative Ranks
Positive Ranks
Ties
Total
a. weight after family t herapy < weight
b. weight after family t herapy > weight
c. weight before family therapy = weigh
Te st Statisticsb
weight after
family therapy
- weight
before family
therapy
Z
-3. 101a
As ymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.002
a. Based on negat ive ranks .
b. W ilcox on Signed Ranks Tes t
12.3 The output follows. There is a significant difference in adaptation based on
group.
Ranks
maternal role adaptation
(low sores better)
GROUP
LBW Experimental
LBW Control
Full-term
Total
N
29
27
37
93
40
Mean Rank
40.17
60.83
42.26
Friedman Test
Test Statisticsa,b
Chi-Square
df
As ymp. Sig.
maternal role
adaptation
(low sores
better)
10.189
2
.006
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: GROUP
12.4 The output
follows. There is a
significant difference in
recall based on
condition.
Ra nks
COUNT
RHYMING
ADJECTIV
IMAGERY
INTENT
Mean Rank
1.55
1.50
3.70
4.35
3.90
Test Statisticsa
N
Chi-Square
df
As ymp. Sig.
10
31.474
4
.000
a. Friedman Test
41