Research

Using the attached documents, please answer all questions and all parts. Thank you, 

Assignment:  

The major purpose of this assignment is to write about the statistical findings in a professional way. You may use parent or teacher ratings in your write-up. Using the output provided, address the hypotheses stated in the Research Questions:

1. Are baseline (Fall) ratings of children selected for the playgroup intervention (‘at risk’) lower in protective factors and skills and higher in behavioral challenges than those not selected (‘not at risk’)?
2. Do children who received the playgroup intervention have lower challenge ratings (BC, DISR, DISC) in the spring than in the fall? 
3. Do children who received the playgroup intervention have higher protector factors and skills ratings (PINT, IN, AT, SC) in the spring than in the fall?

Your write-up will include four sections, written in paragraph form.  

1. Participants: (not a full section, just the demongraphics)

Using the information provided in the overview, describe the source and size of the original sample. From the output, provide descriptive statistics for age (mean, sd, n) by gender and risk status for the sample used for the analyses.  

1. Data Analysis:  

Describe the program used (SPSS) and the types of analyses (independent and dependent samples t tests).

1. Results: (multiple paragraphs)

State the hypotheses that were tested, the results, and the findings in publication format. Review publication format for these analyses. The results in your output may not be the same as described here.

For example: “To confirm the premise that children selected for playgroup have more challenges and lower levels of protective factors and skills, independent samples t tests (two-tailed, α=.05) were used to compare the ratings of ‘at risk’ children with those ‘not at risk’. As expected, a significant difference at baseline between these two groups were found for teacher ratings of initiative, self-control, attachment, play interaction, behavioral concerns, and play disconnection….Contrary to expectations, baseline play disruption did not differ between at risk and not at risk children.”  

Make sure to respond to all three sets of hypotheses.  

1. Interpretation/Discussion

Summarize the findings by consideration of all the results in the larger context of the study. For example, you might start (if this is true in the output provided): “In considering these analyses from the 3rd year of the project, it can be seen that most of the research questions have been answered in the affirmative: Overall, at risk children showed lower average fall ratings by their teachers in protective factors than their not at risk peers. In addition, they were rated as having higher levels of behavioral concerns and play disconnection, but not of play disruption.” Etc.

Lab 1 – Results and Interpretation

Introduction

In a proposal, we write our Method section in the future tense. We usually describe the data analysis plan we have for testing our research hypotheses. This includes the statistical procedures we plan to use. This is also included in a research article, sometimes at the end of the Method section, sometimes in the Results section. In a research article, the Method and Results are written in the past tense.

Learning Objectives

This lab serves as both a review of statistical methods and as practice in writing sections of research articles. This includes

· Description of the study participants – this usually appears in the Participants subsection of the Method section

· Results section, including a description of the data analysis used in the study

· Interpretation of the results in the context of the hypotheses tested – this would typically appear near the beginning of the Discussion section

Materials and Approach

For this assignment, you are provided with the overall description of the study and methods used. Most of you took Statistical Methods with me last semester or earlier in 2021, and so you will recognize the data and possibly remember some of the details of the study provided in the lab assignments. You will have a set of SPSS outputs to review. You will use these findings to address a set of research hypotheses.

This data comes from a program evaluation (details below). A program evaluation differs from a research study in that the data being collected and analyzed is designed to provide information about the process and outcomes of the program being evaluated rather than to test a narrow set of research hypotheses. There may be limitations in the way the data is gathered and what is gathered from whom. Results may be provided in institutional reports and presentations and used for further program development. During this project, data that was collected to meet the federal requirements of Head Start programs was also made available, with permission, to be used to supplement the data collected more specifically for the evaluation.

The Study and Program Evaluation

This data was collected as part of a collaboration between the NYC Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Jewish Board for Family and Children’s Services (JBFCS) to assess the introduction of a mental health intervention for preschool children attending several NYC Head Start programs. The intervention, called Early Childhood Group Therapy, was developed by the late Rebecca Shahmoon Shanok, PhD, at the Child Development Center of JBFCS. She was the director of the training program for early childhood professionals across multiple discipines to lead and facilitate these playgroups. In addition to providing the playgroups at the Head Start centers, the project also trained Head Start staff (several teachers, family workers, and disabilities coordinators) alongside the usual trainees in this program and provided weekly onsite clincial coordination with teachers and other staff. Program evaluation was engaged to gather both quantitative and qualitative data related to not only child behavior, but also to observe the effects of the presence of the project, staff training, and JBFCS clinical coordinators on the ongoing experience of Head Start staff overall, and on the families served by this program.

These are basic premises of the demonstration project (which was called Relationships for Growth during the duration of the project):

· There are social-emotional needs within the population of Head Start children which are not always getting addressed by the mental health community due to, at least in part, a variety of barriers to treatment. The availability of an early childhood intervention during the school day for children identified as ‘at risk’ would be beneficial.

· ‘At risk’ is defined as not being able to take full advantage of the Head Start preschool experience due to psychosocial-emotional-developmental challenges.

· These challenges are identified by observation in the classroom, elsewhere at the Head Start program, and at home by teachers, parents, family workers, JBFCS clinical coordinators, playgroup leaders and those in training, and anyone else who has the opportunity to interact or observe the child.

· ‘At risk’ is not identified via the program evaluation measures (PIPPS and DECA)

· ‘At risk’ children are not formally categorized by DSM diagnostic criteria for therapeutic purposes

· This demonstration project was approved by the parent committee at the Head Starts involved.

· For the purpose of program evaluation, the measures used to assess baseline protective factors (relationship and behavioral skills and strengths) and behavioral challeges (disruptive and disconnecting behavior and a range of other behavioral concerns) are the PIPPS and the DECA.

· The overarching premise of the project is that strengthening protective factors and interaction skills will be associated over time with a reduction to typical levels of behavioral concerns among all children at Head Start, with a special emphasis on those receiving the playgroup intervention.

Research Questions

1. Are baseline (Fall) ratings of children selected for the playgroup intervention (‘at risk’) lower in protective factors and skills and higher in behavioral challenges than those not selected (‘not at risk’)?

2. Do children who received the playgroup intervention have lower challenge ratings (BC, DISR, DISC) in the spring than in the fall?

3. Do children who received the playgroup intervention have higher protector factors and skills ratings (PINT, IN, AT, SC) in the spring than in the fall?

Data

The data set used to prepate this assignment is a sample of Head Start children who participated in the demonstration project at one of three NYC Head Starts in the 3rd year of the project. The full sample for that year included 626 children, 87 of whom received the playgroup intervention. Children selected for the playgroup intervention were identified as ‘at-risk’ of not sufficiently benefiting from the preschool program at their Head Start after observations by parents, teachers, family workers, and other staff. One of the research questions was whether children who were ‘at-risk’ would show substantial gains in social-emotional development after participation in the playgroup intervention.
The data presented here may or may not be representative of data we obtained during this multi-year project.

There are seven social-emotional variables, each of which was rated for each child in the fall and spring by teacher observation of classroom behavior. Additional variables include SEX and AGE and GROUP (whether the child received the intervention or not).

Higher scores on each variable indicate more frequent observation of the characteristics being rated. For example, a high score on Self-Control indicates that the child frequently showed self-control in situations where it would be appropriate. A high score on Play Disruption indicates that the child engaged in disruptive behavior in situations where this behavior would interfere with continued engagement in play activities with other children.

The rating scales were the DECA (Devereux Early Childhood Assessment) and the PIPPS (Penn Interactive Peer Play Scale). Copies of these measures are provided in with the Lab 2 materials in Canvas. Characteristics printed in green are protective factors and skills; characteristics in orange are behavioral challenges.

Teachers (T1) and parents (P1) provided baseline ratings about two months after the start of the school year (prior to the start of the playgroup intervention. Followup ratings with the same measures were also collected about a month before the end of the school year, T3 and P2 respectively.

DECA Variables – Teacher Ratings

· IN_T1 , IN_T3: Initiative

· SC_T1, SC_T3: Self-Control

· AT_T1, AT_T3: Attachment

· BC_T1, BC_T3: Behavioral Concerns

PIPPS Variables – Teacher Ratings

· DISR_T1, DISR_T3: Play Disruption

· DISC_T1, DISC_T3: Play Disconnection

· PINT_T1, PINT_T3: Play Interaction

DECA Variables – Parent Ratings

· IN_P1 , IN_P2: Initiative

· SC_P1, SC_P2: Self-Control

· AT_P1, AT_P2: Attachment

· BC_P1, BC_P2: Behavioral Concerns

PIPPS Variables – Parent Ratings

· DISR_P1, DISR_P2: Play Disruption

· DISC_P1, DISC_P2: Play Disconnection

· PINT_P1, PINT_P2: Play Interaction

Assignment:

The major purpose of this assignment is to write about the statistical findings in a professional way. You may use parent or teacher ratings in your write-up. Using the output provided, address the hypotheses stated in the Research Questions:

1. Are baseline (Fall) ratings of children selected for the playgroup intervention (‘at risk’) lower in protective factors and skills and higher in behavioral challenges than those not selected (‘not at risk’)?

2. Do children who received the playgroup intervention have lower challenge ratings (BC, DISR, DISC) in the spring than in the fall?
3. Do children who received the playgroup intervention have higher protector factors and skills ratings (PINT, IN, AT, SC) in the spring than in the fall?

Your write-up will include four sections, written in paragraph form.

1. Participants: (not a full section, just the demongraphics)

Using the information provided in the overview, describe the source and size of the original sample. From the output, provide descriptive statistics for age (mean, sd, n) by gender and risk status for the sample used for the analyses.

2. Data Analysis:

Describe the program used (SPSS) and the types of analyses (independent and dependent samples t tests).

3. Results: (multiple paragraphs)

State the hypotheses that were tested, the results, and the findings in publication format. Review publication format for these analyses. The results in your output may not be the same as described here.

For example: “To confirm the premise that children selected for playgroup have more challenges and lower levels of protective factors and skills, independent samples t tests (two-tailed, α=.05) were used to compare the ratings of ‘at risk’ children with those ‘not at risk’. As expected, a significant difference at baseline between these two groups were found for teacher ratings of initiative, self-control, attachment, play interaction, behavioral concerns, and play disconnection….Contrary to expectations, baseline play disruption did not differ between at risk and not at risk children.”

Make sure to respond to all three sets of hypotheses.

4. Interpretation/Discussion

Summarize the findings by consideration of all the results in the larger context of the study. For example, you might start (if this is true in the output provided): “In considering these analyses from the 3rd year of the project, it can be seen that most of the research questions have been answered in the affirmative: Overall, at risk children showed lower average fall ratings by their teachers in protective factors than their not at risk peers. In addition, they were rated as having higher levels of behavioral concerns and play disconnection, but not of play disruption.” Etc.

DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.

DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.

SAVE OUTFILE=’C:\Users\anamg\OneDrive – Rutgers

University\Undergrad Course Materials\302\Spring ‘+

‘2022\Lab 1 week 2\M77 poster data n=626 sp22 Lab 1 no

ID.sav’

/COMPRESSED.

DATASET ACTIVATE NoTeacherMis.

DATASET CLOSE DataSet1.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=GROUP SUBJSEX

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies

Notes

Output Created

Comments

Input Data

Active Dataset

File Label

Filter

Weight

Split File

N of Rows in Working Data
File

Missing Value Handling Definition of

Missing

Cases Used

23-JAN-2022 21:25:21

C:\Users\anamg\OneDrive
– Rutgers
University\Undergrad
Course
Materials\302\Spring
2022\Lab 1 week 2\M77
teacher data no missing
Lab 1.sav

NoTeacherMis

Aggregated File

551

User-defined missing
values are treated as
missing.

Statistics are based on all
cases with valid data.

Page 1

Notes

Syntax

Resources Processor Time

Elapsed Time

FREQUENCIES
VARIABLES=GROUP
SUBJSEX
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

00:00:00.00

00:00:00.00

Statistics

Group?

Child Gender

N Valid

Missing

551 551

0 0

Frequency Table

Group?

N %

Not at Risk

At Risk

473 85.8%

78 14.2%

Child Gender
N %

Female

Male

286 51.9%

265 48.1%

OUTPUT MODIFY

/SELECT TABLES

/IF COMMANDS=[“Frequencies(LAST)”]

SUBTYPES=”Frequencies”

/TABLECELLS SELECT=[VALIDPERCENT CUMULATIVEPERCENT ]

APPLYTO=COLUMN HIDE=YES

/TABLECELLS SELECT=[TOTAL] SELECTCONDITION=PARENT(VALID

MISSING) APPLYTO=ROW HIDE=YES

/TABLECELLS SELECT=[VALID] APPLYTO=ROWHEADER UNGROUP=YES

/TABLECELLS SELECT=[PERCENT] SELECTDIMENSION=COLUMNS
Page 2

FORMAT=”PCT” APPLYTO=COLUMN

/TABLECELLS SELECT=[COUNT] APPLYTO=COLUMNHEADER

REPLACE=”N”

/TABLECELLS SELECT=[PERCENT] APPLYTO=COLUMNHEADER

REPLACE=”%”.

T-TEST GROUPS=GROUP(0 1)

/MISSING=LISTWISE

/VARIABLES=IN_T1 SC_T1 AT_T1 BC_T1 DISR_T1 DISC_T1

PINT_T1

/ES DISPLAY(TRUE)

/CRITERIA=CI(.95).

T-Test

Notes
Output Created
Comments
Input Data
Active Dataset
File Label
Filter
Weight
Split File
N of Rows in Working Data
File

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing

Cases Used

23-JAN-2022 21:26:40

C:\Users\anamg\OneDrive
– Rutgers
University\Undergrad
Course
Materials\302\Spring
2022\Lab 1 week 2\M77
teacher data no missing
Lab 1.sav
NoTeacherMis
Aggregated File



551

User defined missing
values are treated as
missing.

Statistics for each analysis
in a list are based on the
cases with no missing or
out-of-range data for any
variable in that list

Page 3

Notes
Syntax
Resources Processor Time
Elapsed Time

T-TEST
GROUPS=GROUP(0 1)
/MISSING=LISTWISE
/VARIABLES=IN_T1
SC_T1 AT_T1 BC_T1
DISR_T1 DISC_T1
PINT_T1
/ES DISPLAY(TRUE)
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).

00:00:00.00

00:00:00.01

Group Statistics

Group? N

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating

Not at Risk
At Risk

Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating

Not at Risk
At Risk

Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating

Not at Risk
At Risk

Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating

Not at Risk
At Risk

Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating

Not at Risk
At Risk

Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating

Not at Risk
At Risk

Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating

Not at Risk
At Risk

473 25.5599 7.66306 .35235

78 20.5679 7.10892 .80493

473 20.6678 5.15516 .23703

78 16.7564 6.21307 .70349

473 20.8580 4.46346 .20523

78 18.1282 3.85907 .43695

473 8.9585 5.03141 .23134

78 14.4957 6.20069 .70209

473 7.5908 5.82997 .26806

78 10.7826 7.22586 .81817

473 5.9359 4.63166 .21296

78 9.5000 4.83158 .54707

473 15.6835 5.39620 .24812

78 12.6520 4.63125 .52439

Page 4

Independent Samples Test

Levene’s Test for Equality of
Variances

t-test for
Equality of …

F Sig. t

Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating

Equal variances assumed

Equal variances not
assumed

Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed

.006 .937 5.383 549

5.681 108.685

4.731 .030 6.020 549

5.269 95.276

2.566 .110 5.096 549

5.655 113.816

8.377 .004 -8.695 549

-7.491 94.447

15.233 <.001 -4.320 549

-3.707 94.241

.452 .502 -6.258 549

-6.071 101.724

2.929 .088 4.684 549

5.226 114.401

Page 5

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

df

Significance

One-Sided p Two-Sided p

Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed

549 <.001 <.001 4.99193

108.685 <.001 <.001 4.99193

549 <.001 <.001 3.91136

95.276 <.001 <.001 3.91136

549 <.001 <.001 2.72984

113.816 <.001 <.001 2.72984

549 <.001 <.001 -5.53725

94.447 <.001 <.001 -5.53725

549 <.001 <.001 -3.19182

94.241 <.001 <.001 -3.19182

549 <.001 <.001 -3.56406

101.724 <.001 <.001 -3.56406

549 <.001 <.001 3.031

46

114.401 <.001 <.001 3.03146

Page 6

Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means

Mean
Difference

Std. Error
Difference

95%
Confidence …

Lower

Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed

4.99193 .92728 3.17047

6.81339

4.99193 .87867 3.25038

6.73348

3.91136 .64968 2.63519

5.18754

3.91136 .74235 2.43766

5.38506

2.72984 .53572 1.67753

3.78216

2.72984 .48275 1.77350

3.68619

-5.53725 .63685 -6.78821

-4.28628

-5.53725 .73922 -7.00490

-4.06959

-3.19182 .73877 -4.64299

-1.74066

-3.19182 .86096 -4.90122

-1.48242

-3.56406 .56951 -4.68275

-2.44537

-3.56406 .58706 -4.72852

-2.39959

3.03146 .64716 1.76025

4.30268

3.03146 .58012 1.88229

4.18064

Page 7

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality
of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the …

Upper

Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
6.81339
6.73348
5.18754
5.38506
3.78216
3.68619
-4.28628
-4.06959
-1.74066
-1.48242
-2.44537
-2.39959
4.30268
4.18064

Page 8

Independent Samples Effect Sizes

Standardizera Point Estimate

95% …

Lower
Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating

Cohen’s d

Hedges’ correction

Glass’s delta

Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Glass’s delta
Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Glass’s delta
Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Glass’s delta
Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Glass’s delta
Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Glass’s delta
Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Glass’s delta

7.58778 .658 .415

.900

7.59816 .657 .414

.899

7.10892 .702 .436

.964

5.31624 .736 .492

.979

5.32352 .735 .491

.9

78

6.21307 .630 .369

.887

4.38372 .623 .380

.865

4.38972 .622 .380

.864

3.85907 .707 .441

.970

5.21125 -1.063 -1.310

–

.814

5.21838 -1.061 -1.308

–

.813

6.20069 -.893 -1.169

-.613

6.04522 -.528 -.769

-.286

6.05349 -.527 -.768 -.286

7.22586 -.442 -.690

-.191

4.66022 -.765 -1.008

-.521

4.66660 -.764 -1.007

-.520

4.83158 -.738 -1.002

-.469

5.29558 .572 .330 .814

5.30283 .572 .330 .813

4.63125 .655 .392

.914

Page 9

Independent Samples Effect Sizes
95% …
Upper
Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Glass’s delta
Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Glass’s delta
Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Glass’s delta
Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Glass’s delta
Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Glass’s delta
Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Glass’s delta
Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Glass’s delta
.900
.899
.964
.979
.978
.887
.865
.864
.970
-.814
-.813
-.613
-.286
-.286
-.191
-.521
-.520
-.469
.814
.813
.914

The denominator used in estimating the effect sizes.
Cohen’s d uses the pooled standard deviation.
Hedges’ correction uses the pooled standard deviation, plus a correction factor.
Glass’s delta uses the sample standard deviation of the control group.

a.

T-TEST PAIRS=IN_T1 SC_T1 AT_T1 PINT_T1 WITH IN_T3 SC_T3

AT_T3 PINT_T3 (PAIRED)

/ES DISPLAY(TRUE) STANDARDIZER(SD)

/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)

/MISSING=LISTWISE.

Page 10

T-Test – Fall to Spring changes for ALL children in this data set.

Notes
Output Created
Comments
Input Data
Active Dataset
File Label
Filter
Weight
Split File
N of Rows in Working Data
File
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing
Cases Used
Syntax
Resources Processor Time
Elapsed Time

23-JAN-2022 21:28:16

C:\Users\anamg\OneDrive
– Rutgers
University\Undergrad
Course
Materials\302\Spring
2022\Lab 1 week 2\M77
teacher data no missing
Lab 1.sav
NoTeacherMis
Aggregated File



551
User defined missing
values are treated as
missing.
Statistics for each analysis
in a list are based on the
cases with no missing or
out-of-range data for any
variable in that list

T-TEST PAIRS=IN_T1
SC_T1 AT_T1 PINT_T1
WITH IN_T3 SC_T3
AT_T3 PINT_T3
(PAIRED)
/ES DISPLAY(TRUE)
STANDARDIZER(SD)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)…

00:00:00.00
00:00:00.01

Page 11

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating

Initiative – Spring – Teacher
Rating

Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating

Self-Control – Spring –
Teacher Rating

Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating

Attachment – Spring –
Teacher Rating

Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating

Play Interaction – Spring –
Teacher Rating

24.8532 551 7.77839 .33137

28.0439 551 7.21485 .30736

20.1141 551 5.48394 .23362

20.8797 551 5.20166 .22160

20.4716 551 4.48211 .19094

22.3127 551 4.33113 .18451

15.2543 551 5.39546 .22985

17.4542 551 4.99320 .21272

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation

Significance
One-Sided p Two-Sided p

Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating & Initiative – Spring –
Teacher Rating

Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating & Self-Control –
Spring – Teacher Rating

Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating & Attachment –
Spring – Teacher Rating

Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating & Play
Interaction – Spring –
Teacher Rating

551 .558 <.001 <.001

551 .477 <.001 <.001

551 .383 <.001 <.001

551 .486 <.001 <.001

Page 12

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
95%
Confidence …
Lower

Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Initiative – Spring –
Teacher Rating

Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Self-Control –
Spring – Teacher Rating

Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Attachment –
Spring – Teacher Rating

Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Interaction – Spring –
Teacher Rating

-3.19070 7.06251 .30087 -3.78170 -2.59970

-.76562 5.47044 .23305 -1.22339 -.30785

-1.84107 4.89714 .20863 -2.25087 -1.43127

-2.19990 5.27627 .22478 -2.64142 -1.75837

Paired Samples Test

Paired …

t df

Significance
95% Confidence
Interval of the …

One-Sided p Two-Sided pUpper

Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Initiative – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Self-Control –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Attachment –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Interaction – Spring –
Teacher Rating

-2.59970 -10.605 550 <.001 <.001

-.30785 -3.285 550 <.001 .001

-1.43127 -8.825 550 <.001 <.001

-1.75837 -9.787 550 <.001 <.001

Page 13

Paired Samples Effect Sizes

Standardizera Point Estimate
95% …
Lower
Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Initiative – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Self-Control –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Attachment –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Interaction – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction

7.06251 -.452 -.539

-.364

7.06733 -.451 -.539 -.364

5.47044 -.140 -.224

-.056

5.47417 -.140 -.224 -.056

4.89714 -.376 -.462

-.289

4.90048 -.376 -.462 -.289

5.27627 -.417 -.504

-.330

5.27987 -.417 -.503

-.329

Paired Samples Effect Sizes
95% …
Upper
Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Initiative – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Self-Control –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Attachment –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Interaction – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
-.364
-.364
-.056
-.056
-.289
-.289
-.330
-.329

The denominator used in estimating the effect sizes.
Cohen’s d uses the sample standard deviation of the mean difference.
Hedges’ correction uses the sample standard deviation of the mean difference, plus a correction factor.

a.

T-TEST PAIRS=BC_T1 DISR_T1 DISC_T1 WITH BC_T3 DISR_T3

DISC_T3 (PAIRED)

Page 14

/ES DISPLAY(TRUE) STANDARDIZER(SD)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=LISTWISE.
T-Test
Notes
Output Created
Comments
Input Data
Active Dataset
File Label
Filter
Weight
Split File
N of Rows in Working Data
File
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing
Cases Used
Syntax
Resources Processor Time
Elapsed Time

23-JAN-2022 21:29:59

C:\Users\anamg\OneDrive
– Rutgers
University\Undergrad
Course
Materials\302\Spring
2022\Lab 1 week 2\M77
teacher data no missing
Lab 1.sav
NoTeacherMis
Aggregated File



551
User defined missing
values are treated as
missing.
Statistics for each analysis
in a list are based on the
cases with no missing or
out-of-range data for any
variable in that list

T-TEST PAIRS=BC_T1
DISR_T1 DISC_T1 WITH
BC_T3 DISR_T3 DISC_T3
(PAIRED)
/ES DISPLAY(TRUE)
STANDARDIZER(SD)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=LISTWISE.

00:00:00.00
00:00:00.01

Page 15

Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating

Behavioral Concerns –
Spring – Teacher Rating

Pair 2 Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating

Play Disruption – Spring –
Teacher Rating

Pair 3 Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating

Play Disconnection – Spring
– Teacher Rating

9.7423 551 5.55342 .23658

9.6300 551 5.43452 .23152

8.0426 551 6.14154 .26164

9.5403 551 6.36423 .27113

6.4405 551 4.81919 .20530

6.3576 551 4.92930 .21000

Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation
Significance
One-Sided p Two-Sided p

Pair 1 Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating &
Behavioral Concerns –
Spring – Teacher Rating

Pair 2 Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating & Play
Disruption – Spring –
Teacher Rating

Pair 3 Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating & Play
Disconnection – Spring –
Teacher Rating

551 .558 <.001 <.001

551 .545 <.001 <.001

551 .450 <.001 <.001

Page 16

Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
95%
Confidence …
Lower

Pair 1 Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Behavioral
Concerns – Spring –
Teacher Rating

Pair 2 Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disruption – Spring –
Teacher Rating

Pair 3 Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disconnection – Spring –
Teacher Rating

.11237 5.16486 .22003 -.31983 .54457

-1.49769 5.96774 .25423 -1.99708 -.99830

.08285 5.11189 .21777 -.34492 .51062

Paired Samples Test
Paired …
t df
Significance
95% Confidence
Interval of the …
One-Sided p Two-Sided pUpper
Pair 1 Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Behavioral
Concerns – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Pair 2 Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disruption – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Pair 3 Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disconnection – Spring –
Teacher Rating

.54457 .511 550 .305 .610

-.99830 -5.891 550 <.001 <.001

.51062 .380 550 .352 .704

Page 17

Paired Samples Effect Sizes
Standardizera Point Estimate
95% …
Lower
Pair 1 Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Behavioral
Concerns – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 2 Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disruption – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 3 Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disconnection – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction

5.16486 .022 -.062

.105

5.16839 .022 -.062 .105

5.96774 -.251 -.336

-.166

5.97181 -.251 -.335 -.166

5.11189 .016 -.067

.100

5.11538 .016 -.067 .100

Paired Samples Effect Sizes
95% …
Upper
Pair 1 Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Behavioral
Concerns – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 2 Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disruption – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 3 Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disconnection – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
.105
.105
-.166
-.166
.100
.100
The denominator used in estimating the effect sizes.
Cohen’s d uses the sample standard deviation of the mean difference.
Hedges’ correction uses the sample standard deviation of the mean difference, plus a correction factor.
a.

USE ALL.

COMPUTE filter_$=(GROUP = 1).

VARIABLE LABELS filter_$ ‘GROUP = 1 (FILTER)’.

VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 ‘Not Selected’ 1 ‘Selected’.

FORMATS filter_$ (f1.0).

FILTER BY filter_$.

Page 18

EXECUTE.

T-TEST PAIRS=BC_T1 DISR_T1 DISC_T1 WITH BC_T3 DISR_T3
DISC_T3 (PAIRED)
/ES DISPLAY(TRUE) STANDARDIZER(SD)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=LISTWISE.

T-Test – Fall to Spring Changes for At Risk Children only

Notes
Output Created
Comments
Input Data
Active Dataset
File Label
Filter
Weight
Split File
N of Rows in Working Data
File
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing
Cases Used

23-JAN-2022 21:32:59

C:\Users\anamg\OneDrive
– Rutgers
University\Undergrad
Course
Materials\302\Spring
2022\Lab 1 week 2\M77
teacher data no missing
Lab 1.sav
NoTeacherMis
Aggregated File

GROUP = 1 (FILTER)

78
User defined missing
values are treated as
missing.
Statistics for each analysis
in a list are based on the
cases with no missing or
out-of-range data for any
variable in that list

Page 19

Notes
Syntax
Resources Processor Time
Elapsed Time
T-TEST PAIRS=BC_T1
DISR_T1 DISC_T1 WITH
BC_T3 DISR_T3 DISC_T3
(PAIRED)
/ES DISPLAY(TRUE)
STANDARDIZER(SD)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=LISTWISE.
00:00:00.00
00:00:00.01
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Behavioral Concerns –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Pair 2 Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Play Disruption – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Pair 3 Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Play Disconnection – Spring
– Teacher Rating

14.4957 78 6.20069 .70209

12.2479 78 6.10377 .69112

10.7826 78 7.22586 .81817

11.3613 78 7.40633 .83860

9.5000 78 4.83158 .54707

7.6179 78 4.64961 .52646

Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation
Significance
One-Sided p Two-Sided p
Pair 1 Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating &
Behavioral Concerns –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Pair 2 Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating & Play
Disruption – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Pair 3 Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating & Play
Disconnection – Spring –
Teacher Rating

78 .488 <.001 <.001

78 .582 <.001 <.001

78 .182 .056 .111

Page 20

Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
95%
Confidence …
Lower
Pair 1 Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Behavioral
Concerns – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Pair 2 Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disruption – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Pair 3 Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disconnection – Spring –
Teacher Rating

2.24786 6.22843 .70523 .84357 3.65216

-.57867 6.69171 .75769 -2.08742 .93008

1.88205 6.06625 .68687 .51432 3.24978

Paired Samples Test
Paired …
t df
Significance
95% Confidence
Interval of the …
One-Sided p Two-Sided pUpper
Pair 1 Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Behavioral
Concerns – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Pair 2 Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disruption – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Pair 3 Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disconnection – Spring –
Teacher Rating

3.65216 3.187 77 .001 .002

.93008 -.764 77 .224 .447

3.24978 2.740 77 .004 .008

Page 21

Paired Samples Effect Sizes
Standardizera Point Estimate
95% …
Lower
Pair 1 Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Behavioral
Concerns – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 2 Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disruption – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 3 Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disconnection – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction

6.22843 .361 .131

.589

6.25897 .359 .130

.586

6.69171 -.086 -.309

.136

6.72452 -.086 -.307

.135

6.06625 .310 .082

.537

6.09600 .309 .082

.534

Paired Samples Effect Sizes
95% …
Upper
Pair 1 Behavioral Concerns – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Behavioral
Concerns – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 2 Play Disruption – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disruption – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 3 Play Disconnection – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Disconnection – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
.589
.586
.136
.135
.537
.534
The denominator used in estimating the effect sizes.
Cohen’s d uses the sample standard deviation of the mean difference.
Hedges’ correction uses the sample standard deviation of the mean difference, plus a correction factor.
a.
T-TEST PAIRS=IN_T1 SC_T1 AT_T1 PINT_T1 WITH IN_T3 SC_T3
AT_T3 PINT_T3 (PAIRED)
/ES DISPLAY(TRUE) STANDARDIZER(SD)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=LISTWISE.

T-Test
Page 22

Notes
Output Created
Comments
Input Data
Active Dataset
File Label
Filter
Weight
Split File
N of Rows in Working Data
File
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing
Cases Used
Syntax
Resources Processor Time
Elapsed Time

23-JAN-2022 21:34:48

C:\Users\anamg\OneDrive
– Rutgers
University\Undergrad
Course
Materials\302\Spring
2022\Lab 1 week 2\M77
teacher data no missing
Lab 1.sav
NoTeacherMis
Aggregated File
GROUP = 1 (FILTER)


78
User defined missing
values are treated as
missing.
Statistics for each analysis
in a list are based on the
cases with no missing or
out-of-range data for any
variable in that list
T-TEST PAIRS=IN_T1
SC_T1 AT_T1 PINT_T1
WITH IN_T3 SC_T3
AT_T3 PINT_T3
(PAIRED)
/ES DISPLAY(TRUE)
STANDARDIZER(SD)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)…
00:00:00.00
00:00:00.01

Page 23

Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Initiative – Spring – Teacher
Rating
Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Self-Control – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating
Attachment – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating
Play Interaction – Spring –
Teacher Rating

20.5679 78 7.10892 .80493

26.7026 78 6.59541 .74678

16.7564 78 6.21307 .70349

18.9799 78 5.69820 .64519

18.1282 78 3.85907 .43695

20.9103 78 4.77598 .54077

12.6520 78 4.63125 .52439

16.3755 78 4.86870 .55127

Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation
Significance
One-Sided p Two-Sided p
Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating & Initiative – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating & Self-Control –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating & Attachment –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating & Play
Interaction – Spring –
Teacher Rating

78 .456 <.001 <.001

78 .407 <.001 <.001

78 .378 <.001 <.001

78 .303 .004 .007

Page 24

Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
95%
Confidence …
Lower
Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Initiative – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Self-Control –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Attachment –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Interaction – Spring –
Teacher Rating

-6.13462 7.15962 .81067 -7.74886 -4.52037

-2.22344 6.49804 .73576 -3.68853 -.75836

-2.78205 4.87412 .55189 -3.88100 -1.68311

-3.72344 5.61251 .63549 -4.98887 -2.45802

Paired Samples Test
Paired …
t df
Significance
95% Confidence
Interval of the …
One-Sided p Two-Sided pUpper
Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Initiative – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Self-Control –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Attachment –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Interaction – Spring –
Teacher Rating

-4.52037 -7.567 77 <.001 <.001

-.75836 -3.022 77 .002 .003

-1.68311 -5.041 77 <.001 <.001

-2.45802 -5.859 77 <.001 <.001

Page 25

Paired Samples Effect Sizes
Standardizera Point Estimate
95% …
Lower
Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Initiative – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Self-Control –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Attachment –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Interaction – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction

7.15962 -.857 -1.115

-.595

7.19473 -.853 -1.109

-.592

6.49804 -.342 -.570

-.113

6.52990 -.341 -.567

-.112

4.87412 -.571 -.809 -.330

4.89802 -.568 -.805

-.328

5.61251 -.663 -.907

-.416

5.64003 -.660 -.903

-.414

Paired Samples Effect Sizes
95% …
Upper
Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Initiative – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Self-Control –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Teacher
Rating – Attachment –
Spring – Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall –
Teacher Rating – Play
Interaction – Spring –
Teacher Rating
Cohen’s d
Hedges’ correction
-.595
-.592
-.113
-.112
-.330
-.328
-.416
-.414
The denominator used in estimating the effect sizes.
Cohen’s d uses the sample standard deviation of the mean difference.
Hedges’ correction uses the sample standard deviation of the mean difference, plus a correction factor.
a.

SORT CASES BY SUBJSEX GROUP.

SPLIT FILE LAYERED BY SUBJSEX GROUP.

Page 26

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=AGE

/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX SKEWNESS.

Descriptives

Notes
Output Created
Comments
Input Data
Active Dataset
File Label
Filter
Weight
Split File
N of Rows in Working Data
File
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing
Cases Used
Syntax
Resources Processor Time
Elapsed Time

23-JAN-2022 22:10:57

C:\Users\anamg\OneDrive
– Rutgers
University\Undergrad
Course
Materials\302\Spring
2022\Lab 1 week 2\M77
teacher data no missing
Lab 1.sav

DataSet2

Aggregated File

Child Gender, Group?

551
User defined missing
values are treated as
missing.

All non-missing data are
used.

DESCRIPTIVES
VARIABLES=AGE
/STATISTICS=MEAN
STDDEV MIN MAX
SKEWNESS.

00:00:00.00
00:00:00.00

Page 27

Descriptive Statistics

Child Gender Group?

N Minimum Maximum Mean

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic

Female Not at Risk Starting Age Fall 2000

Valid N (listwise)

At Risk Starting Age Fall 2000

Valid N (listwise)

Male Not at Risk Starting Age Fall 2000

Valid N (listwise)
At Risk Starting Age Fall 2000
Valid N (listwise)

254 2.68 5.60 3.8171 .56924

254

32 2.91 4.65 3.9111 .52679

32

219 2.71 4.68 3.8624 .54734

219

46 2.79 5.48 4.0437 .57025

46
Descriptive Statistics
Child Gender Group?

Std. Deviation Skewness

Statistic Statistic Std. Error

Female Not at Risk Starting Age Fall 2000
Valid N (listwise)
At Risk Starting Age Fall 2000
Valid N (listwise)
Male Not at Risk Starting Age Fall 2000
Valid N (listwise)
At Risk Starting Age Fall 2000
Valid N (listwise)

.56924 -.071 .153

.52679 -.276 .414

.54734 -.373 .164

.57025 -.420 .350

Page 28

• Log

Frequencies
Title
Notes
Statistics
Frequency Table
Title
Group?
Child Gender

Log
T-Test
Title
Notes
Group Statistics
Independent Samples Test
Independent Samples Effect Sizes
Log
T-Test
Title
Notes
Paired Samples Statistics
Paired Samples Correlations
Paired Samples Test
Paired Samples Effect Sizes
Log
T-Test
Title
Notes
Paired Samples Statistics
Paired Samples Correlations
Paired Samples Test
Paired Samples Effect Sizes
Log
T-Test
Title
Notes
Paired Samples Statistics
Paired Samples Correlations
Paired Samples Test
Paired Samples Effect Sizes
Log
T-Test
Title
Notes
Paired Samples Statistics
Paired Samples Correlations
Paired Samples Test
Paired Samples Effect Sizes
Log
Descriptives
Title
Notes
Descriptive Statistics