\nTotal<\/td>\n | 105<\/td>\n | 7.13<\/td>\n | 1.600<\/td>\n | .156<\/td>\n | 6.82<\/td>\n | 7.44<\/td>\n | 2<\/td>\n | 10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Figure 1.6: <\/strong>SPSS output data of descriptives for quiz3 including all sections.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n From the descriptive statistics above, the mean value for section 1,2 and 3 were 7.27, 6.33 and 7.94 respectively. The standard deviation value also varied from one section to another; the values obtained for section 1, 2 and 3 were 1.153, 1.611 and 1.1560 respectively. The results confirm that there is a significant variation in the quiz score among the three sections.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n\n\nANOVA<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nquiz3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n<\/td>\n | Sum of Squares<\/td>\n | df<\/td>\n | Mean Square<\/td>\n | F<\/td>\n | Sig.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nBetween Groups<\/td>\n | 47.042<\/td>\n | 2<\/td>\n | 23.521<\/td>\n | 10.951<\/td>\n | .000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nWithin Groups<\/td>\n | 219.091<\/td>\n | 102<\/td>\n | 2.148<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nTotal<\/td>\n | 266.133<\/td>\n | 104<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nFigure 1.7:<\/strong> SPSS output data showing ANOVA results<\/h2>\nThe ANOVA results as depicted in fig 1.7 shows that the degree of freedom for the between and within groups is 2 and 102 respectively. The total degree of freedom value is 104. The F score is 10.951 while the sig. value is .000 with the effect size of 0.5588 which is significantly small. The sig. value is 0.000 and this shows that the p-value is less than 0.05 and thus significant at the critical alpha value; therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected (George, and Mallery, 2016).<\/p>\n \n\n\nMultiple Comparisons<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nDependent Variable:\u00a0\u00a0 quiz3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nTukey HSD<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n(I) section<\/td>\n | (J) section<\/td>\n | Mean Difference (I-J)<\/td>\n | Std. Error<\/td>\n | Sig.<\/td>\n | 95% Confidence Interval<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nLower Bound<\/td>\n | Upper Bound<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n1<\/td>\n | 2<\/td>\n | .939*<\/sup><\/td>\n.347<\/td>\n | .021<\/td>\n | .11<\/td>\n | 1.76<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n3<\/td>\n | -.667<\/td>\n | .361<\/td>\n | .159<\/td>\n | -1.52<\/td>\n | .19<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n2<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | -.939*<\/sup><\/td>\n.347<\/td>\n | .021<\/td>\n | -1.76<\/td>\n | -.11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n3<\/td>\n | -1.606*<\/sup><\/td>\n.347<\/td>\n | .000<\/td>\n | -2.43<\/td>\n | -.78<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n3<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | .667<\/td>\n | .361<\/td>\n | .159<\/td>\n | -.19<\/td>\n | 1.52<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n2<\/td>\n | 1.606*<\/sup><\/td>\n.347<\/td>\n | .000<\/td>\n | .78<\/td>\n | 2.43<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nFigure 1.8: <\/strong>SPSS output data showing post-hoc<\/h2>\nFurthermore, the mean comparison between the three sections was one and the post-hoc used in determining whether there is a significant difference between the groups. From the results in fig 1.8, there is a significant variation between the scores in the three sections. The variance value for section 1 compared to section 2 is 0.939 which is quite significant. Similarly, the variance value for section 2 compared to section 3 was 1.606 which is still high. The least variance value was obtained between section 1 and 3.<\/p>\n Assignment: One-Way ANOVA Essay Section 5: Conclusion<\/h2>\nFinally, the ANOVA results in this study indicated that there was a significant difference in the score between the three sections. The findings from the statistical test are helpful in testing the hypotheses and thus answering the research question. In this case, the null hypothesis was rejected because the p-value obtained was significant at the critical value alpha=0.05. The performance in quiz3 varied significantly from one group to another and based on this, a further study may be conducted to explore the factors contributing to the variation in the performances.<\/p>\n On the other hand, in as much as the test was appropriate and helpful in answering the research questions, it was faced by limitations such as small sample size. The sample size was not adequate to fully provide an answer to the research question. Furthermore, due to the differences within the data obtained, one is required to conduct separate tests such as post-hoc to discover the significance of the data when performing an ANOVA test; this appears to be cumbersome.<\/p>\n As with your previous assignments, you will complete this assignment with the DAA Template. Links to additional resources are available in the Resources area.<\/p>\n Reminder: The format of this SPSS assignment should be narrative with supporting statistical output (table and graphs) integrated into the text in the appropriate places (not all at the end of the document).<\/p>\n You will analyze the following variables in the grades.sav data set:<\/p>\n section \nquiz3<\/p>\n Step 1: Write Section 1 of the DAA.<\/p>\n Provide the context of the grades.sav data set. \nInclude a definition of the specified variables (predictor, outcome) and corresponding scales of measurement. \nSpecify the sample size of the data set.<\/p>\n Step 2: Write Section 2 of the DAA.<\/p>\n Analyze the assumptions of the one-way ANOVA. \nPaste the SPSS histogram output for quiz3 and discuss your visual interpretations. \nPaste SPSS descriptives output showing skewness and kurtosis values for quiz3 and interpret them. \nPaste SPSS output for the Shapiro-Wilk test of quiz3 and interpret it. \nReport the results of the Levene test and interpret it. \nSummarize whether or not the assumptions of the one-way ANOVA are met.<\/p>\n Step 3: Write Section 3 of the DAA.<\/p>\n Specify a research question related to the one-way ANOVA. \nArticulate the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. \nSpecify the alpha level.<\/p>\n Step 4: Write Section 4 of the DAA.<\/p>\n Begin by pasting SPSS output of the means plot and providing an interpretation. \nAlso report the means and standard deviations of quiz3 for each level of the section variable. \nNext, paste the SPSS ANOVA output and report the results of the F test, including: \nDegrees of freedom. \nF value. \np value. \nCalculated effect size. \nInterpretation of the effect size. \nFinally, if the omnibus F is significant, provide the SPSS post-hoc (Tukey HSD) output. \nInterpret the post-hoc tests.<\/p>\n Step 5: Write Section 5 of the DAA.<\/p>\n Discuss the conclusions of the one-way ANOVA as it relates to the research question. \nConclude with an analysis of the strengths and limitations of one-way ANOVA.<\/p>\n Submit your DAA Template as an attached Word document in the assignment area.<\/p>\n | | | | | | | | |