Using the attached documents, please answer the questions below: Participants: (not a full section, just the demongraphics)
Using the attached documents, please answer the questions below:
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.
Data Analysis:
Describe the program used (SPSS) and the types of analyses (independent and dependent samples t tests).
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.
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 NoParentMis.
DATASET CLOSE NoTeacherMis.
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
Syntax
Resources Processor Time
Elapsed Time
23-JAN-2022 21:40:59
C:UsersanamgOneDrive – Rutgers UniversityUndergrad Course Materials302Spring 2022Lab 1 week 2M77 parent data no missing Lab 1.sav
NoParentMis
Aggregated File
<none>
<none>
<none>
216
User-defined missing values are treated as missing.
Statistics are based on all cases with valid data.
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=GROUP SUBJSEX /ORDER=ANALYSIS.
00:00:00.00
00:00:00.01
Page 1
Statistics
Group? Child Gender
N Valid
Missing
216 216
0 0
Frequency Table
Group?
N %
Not at Risk
At Risk
178 82.4%
38 17.6%
Child Gender
N %
Female
Male
118 54.6%
98 45.4%
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
FORMAT="PCT" APPLYTO=COLUMN
/TABLECELLS SELECT=[COUNT] APPLYTO=COLUMNHEADER
REPLACE="N"
/TABLECELLS SELECT=[PERCENT] APPLYTO=COLUMNHEADER
REPLACE="%".
T-TEST GROUPS=GROUP(0 1)
Page 2
/MISSING=LISTWISE
/VARIABLES=IN_P1 SC_P1 AT_P1 BC_P1 DISR_P1 DISC_P1
PINT_P1
/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
Syntax
23-JAN-2022 21:41:39
C:UsersanamgOneDrive – Rutgers UniversityUndergrad Course Materials302Spring 2022Lab 1 week 2M77 parent data no missing Lab 1.sav
NoParentMis
Aggregated File
<none>
<none>
<none>
216
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 GROUPS=GROUP(0 1) /MISSING=LISTWISE /VARIABLES=IN_P1 SC_P1 AT_P1 BC_P1 DISR_P1 DISC_P1 PINT_P1 /ES DISPLAY(TRUE) /CRITERIA=CI(.95).
00:00:00.02 Page 3
Notes
Resources Processor Time
Elapsed Time
00:00:00.02
00:00:00.01
Group Statistics
Group? N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Initiative – Fall – Parent Rating
Not at Risk
At Risk
Self-Control – Fall – Parent Rating
Not at Risk
At Risk
Attachment – Fall – Parent Rating
Not at Risk
At Risk
Behavioral Concerns – Fall – Parent Rating
Not at Risk
At Risk
Play Disruption – Fall – Parent Rating
Not at Risk
At Risk
Play Disconnection – Fall – Parent Rating
Not at Risk
At Risk
Play Interaction – Fall – Parent Rating
Not at Risk
At Risk
178 29.7703 7.12541 .53407
38 27.8763 6.49363 1.05341
178 20.8868 5.31780 .39859
38 19.2368 5.03417 .81665
178 25.4583 3.98680 .29882
38 24.0639 4.29878 .69735
178 11.9003 5.62987 .42198
38 14.3911 5.28755 .85775
178 8.6767 4.56812 .34240
38 10.5287 4.33569 .70334
178 4.4747 2.98989 .22410
38 6.6000 4.00830 .65023
178 19.0931 5.21643 .39099
38 16.9398 5.54445 .89943
Page 4
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of …
F Sig. t
Initiative – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Self-Control – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Attachment – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Behavioral Concerns – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Play Disruption – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Play Disconnection – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Play Interaction – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
.022 .883 1.510 214
1.604 57.669
.013 .909 1.752 214
1.816 56.063
.001 .978 1.930 214
1.838 51.473
.095 .758 -2.501 214
-2.606 56.386
.173 .678 -2.288 214
-2.368 55.958
3.161 .077 -3.729 214
-3.090 46.176
.218 .641 2.284 214
2.196 51.918
Page 5
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
df
Significance
One-Sided p Two-Sided p
Initiative – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Self-Control – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Attachment – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Behavioral Concerns – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Play Disruption – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Play Disconnection – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Play Interaction – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
214 .066 .133 1.89403
57.669 .057 .114 1.89403
214 .041 .081 1.65000
56.063 .037 .075 1.65000
214 .027 .055 1.39436
51.473 .036 .072 1.39436
214 .007 .013 -2.49080
56.386 .006 .012 -2.49080
214 .012 .023 -1.85200
55.958 .011 .021 -1.85200
214 <.001 <.001 -2.12528
46.176 .002 .003 -2.12528
214 .012 .023 2.15325
51.918 .016 .033 2.15325
Page 6
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence …
Lower
Initiative – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Self-Control – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Attachment – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Behavioral Concerns – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Play Disruption – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Play Disconnection – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Play Interaction – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
1.89403 1.25452 -.57876 4.36683
1.89403 1.18106 -.47040 4.25847
1.65000 .94172 -.20625 3.50624
1.65000 .90873 -.17036 3.47035
1.39436 .72239 -.02955 2.81826
1.39436 .75868 -.12842 2.91714
-2.49080 .99575 -4.45354 -.52806
-2.49080 .95593 -4.40547 -.57613
-1.85200 .80930 -3.44721 -.25679
-1.85200 .78226 -3.41907 -.28492
-2.12528 .56993 -3.24868 -1.00189
-2.12528 .68777 -3.50954 -.74102
2.15325 .94257 .29533 4.01116
2.15325 .98074 .18518 4.12131
Page 7
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the …
Upper
Initiative – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Self-Control – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Attachment – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Behavioral Concerns – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Play Disruption – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Play Disconnection – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
Play Interaction – Fall – Parent Rating
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
4.36683
4.25847
3.50624
3.47035
2.81826
2.91714
-.52806
-.57613
-.25679
-.28492
-1.00189
-.74102
4.01116
4.12131
Page 8
Independent Samples Effect Sizes
Standardizera Point Estimate
95% …
Lower
Initiative – Fall – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Glass's delta
Self-Control – Fall – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Glass's delta
Attachment – Fall – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Glass's delta
Behavioral Concerns – Fall – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Glass's delta
Play Disruption – Fall – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Glass's delta
Play Disconnection – Fall – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Glass's delta
Play Interaction – Fall – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Glass's delta
7.02025 .270 -.082 .621
7.04497 .269 -.081 .618
6.49363 .292 -.067 .646
5.26985 .313 -.039 .664
5.28841 .312 -.039 .662
5.03417 .328 -.032 .684
4.04246 .345 -.007 .696
4.05670 .344 -.007 .694
4.29878 .324 -.036 .680
5.57219 -.447 -.799 -.094
5.59181 -.445 -.796 -.093
5.28755 -.471 -.834 -.102
4.52879 -.409 -.761 -.056
4.54474 -.408 -.758 -.056
4.33569 -.427 -.788 -.061
3.18930 -.666 -1.022 -.310
3.20054 -.664 -1.018 -.309
4.00830 -.530 -.897 -.157
5.27460 .408 .055 .760
5.29318 .407 .055 .757
5.54445 .388 .025 .747
Page 9
Independent Samples Effect Sizes
95% …
Upper
Initiative – Fall – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Glass's delta
Self-Control – Fall – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Glass's delta
Attachment – Fall – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Glass's delta
Behavioral Concerns – Fall – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Glass's delta
Play Disruption – Fall – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Glass's delta
Play Disconnection – Fall – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Glass's delta
Play Interaction – Fall – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Glass's delta
.621
.618
.646
.664
.662
.684
.696
.694
.680
-.094
-.093
-.102
-.056
-.056
-.061
-.310
-.309
-.157
.760
.757
.747
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_P1 SC_P1 AT_P1 PINT_P1 WITH IN_P2 SC_P2
AT_P2 PINT_P2 (PAIRED)
/ES DISPLAY(TRUE) STANDARDIZER(SD)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=LISTWISE.
Page 10
T-Test – Fall to Spring Changes All Children in dataset
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 21:44:35
C:UsersanamgOneDrive – Rutgers UniversityUndergrad Course Materials302Spring 2022Lab 1 week 2M77 parent data no missing Lab 1.sav
NoParentMis
Aggregated File
<none>
<none>
<none>
216
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_P1 SC_P1 AT_P1 PINT_P1 WITH IN_P2 SC_P2 AT_P2 PINT_P2 (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 – Parent Rating
Initiative – Spring – Parent Rating
Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Parent Rating
Self-Control – Spring – Parent Rating
Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Parent Rating
Attachment – Spring – Parent Rating
Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall – Parent Rating
Play Interaction – Spring – Parent Rating
29.4371 216 7.04110 .47909
31.3517 216 6.58012 .44772
20.5966 216 5.29515 .36029
21.8300 216 4.72738 .32166
25.2130 216 4.06800 .27679
25.5642 216 4.11023 .27967
18.7143 216 5.32610 .36240
19.7004 216 5.12791 .34891
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation
Significance
One-Sided p Two-Sided p
Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Parent Rating & Initiative – Spring – Parent Rating
Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Parent Rating & Self-Control – Spring – Parent Rating
Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Parent Rating & Attachment – Spring – Parent Rating
Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall – Parent Rating & Play Interaction – Spring – Parent Rating
216 .533 <.001 <.001
216 .537 <.001 <.001
216 .449 <.001 <.001
216 .563 <.001 <.001
Page 12
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
95% Confidence …
Lower
Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Parent Rating – Initiative – Spring – Parent Rating
Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Parent Rating – Self-Control – Spring – Parent Rating
Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Parent Rating – Attachment – Spring – Parent Rating
Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall – Parent Rating – Play Interaction – Spring – Parent Rating
-1.91461 6.59378 .44865 -2.79892 -1.03029
-1.23347 4.84601 .32973 -1.88338 -.58355
-.35119 4.29104 .29197 -.92668 .22430
-.98611 4.88733 .33254 -1.64157 -.33065
Paired Samples Test
Paired …
t df
Significance
95% Confidence Interval of the …
One-Sided p Two-Sided pUpper
Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Parent Rating – Initiative – Spring – Parent Rating
Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Parent Rating – Self-Control – Spring – Parent Rating
Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Parent Rating – Attachment – Spring – Parent Rating
Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall – Parent Rating – Play Interaction – Spring – Parent Rating
-1.03029 -4.267 215 <.001 <.001
-.58355 -3.741 215 <.001 <.001
.22430 -1.203 215 .115 .230
-.33065 -2.965 215 .002 .003
Page 13
Paired Samples Effect Sizes
Standardizera Point Estimate
95% …
Lower
Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Parent Rating – Initiative – Spring – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Parent Rating – Self-Control – Spring – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Parent Rating – Attachment – Spring – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall – Parent Rating – Play Interaction – Spring – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
6.59378 -.290 -.426 -.154
6.60531 -.290 -.425 -.154
4.84601 -.255 -.390 -.119
4.85448 -.254 -.389 -.119
4.29104 -.082 -.215 .052
4.29855 -.082 -.215 .052
4.88733 -.202 -.336 -.067
4.89588 -.201 -.336 -.067
Paired Samples Effect Sizes
95% …
Upper
Pair 1 Initiative – Fall – Parent Rating – Initiative – Spring – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Pair 2 Self-Control – Fall – Parent Rating – Self-Control – Spring – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Pair 3 Attachment – Fall – Parent Rating – Attachment – Spring – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
Pair 4 Play Interaction – Fall – Parent Rating – Play Interaction – Spring – Parent Rating
Cohen's d
Hedges' correction
-.154
-.154
-.119
-.119
.052
.052
-.067
-.067
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_P1 DISR_P1 DISC_P1 WITH BC_P2 DISR_P2
DISC_P2 (PAIRED)
/ES DISPLAY(TRUE) STANDARDIZER(SD)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=LISTWISE. Page 14
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 21:46:23
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
