Report APA
Report APA
Report APA
This guide exists in order to provide guidance on reporting inferential results in psychology assignments. It does not provide guidance on scientific writing, nor does it aim to provide comprehensive information on how to structure practical reports or results sections, though some guidance is offered. In other words, this guide is aimed at ensuring that you report inferential statistics (i.e. the results of statistical analyses such as t-Tests, ANOVAs, and correlations) in the appropriate format.
SITE CONTENTS
1. Organising Results
a) DESCRIPTIVES b) STATEMENT OF TEST c) FINDING INFERENTIALS d) IMPACT ON HYPOTHESIS 2. APA Inferentials a) b) c) d) e) f) g) General rules t-test results ANOVA/MANOVA results Correlation results Chi-square results Non-significant results Nearly significant results
3. Example SPSS output with inferentials a) b) c) d) t-test output ANOVA output Correlation output Chi-square output
4. Useful references
1.a - Descriptives
At the beginning of your results section, you should present and explain the descriptive statistics that are relevant to your hypothesis. For example, if you have predicted that one group will score higher/lower than another group on a measure, it is vital to provide group means and standard deviations on that measure. Descriptive statistics can encompass measures of central tendency (e.g. means), measures of dispersion (e.g. standard deviations), and frequencies. Descriptive statistics are best presented in a table, such as the one below
Table 1 Mean weekly units of alcohol (with standard deviations) consumed by males and females
Be sure to title and label adequately. Do not use raw output containing poor labels (e.g. SPSS sometimes produces tables with group codes, such as 1 and 2, where youve coded labels such as male and female). Do not present tables and figures that are meaningless tidy up the raw output to convey the full meaning. Do not simply put in the means/standard deviations output from SPSS. Make sure that you refer to the table in your results section. For example, Table 1 shows that the mean weekly units of alcohol consumed by males was higher than that consumed by females. If it would make your descriptive statistics more accessible to the reader, use a figure, such as a bar chart or line graph. Only provide such where they will enhance understanding of tables, and, again, make sure you refer to them in your results section.
ALGABRAIC NAME OF STATISTIC (t, F, r, etc.) DEGREES OF FREEDOM (if relevant) VALUE OF THE STATISTIC
(??) e.g.
= ????,
p < ????
(??, ??)
????,
p < ????
e.g.
Notice that there are two values for degrees of freedom reported in the brackets after F. That is because with F ratios, there are two df values of relevance. The first is the df for the effect itself (see the df value in the row where the effect is stated in the SPSS output). The second is the df for error (see the df value in the row where ERROR is stated in the SPSS output). With one-way ANOVAS on SPSS, the output wont provide a row named after your effect and a row named ERROR. Instead, it provides a BETWEEN row, and a WITHIN row. For the purposes of reporting such an F, df BETWEEN equals df for the effect, and df WITHIN equals df for ERROR. You should be able to think why this is the case from your knowledge of variance
Name, degrees of freedom, value, probability Name, number of cases, value*, probability
r (??) e.g.
x2 (??) e.g.
Note: Since chi-square deals with frequencies, means and standard deviations are inappropriate for the descriptives section of the report. What is more appropriate is a cross-tabulation table showing the expected and observed frequencies for the different levels of the categorical variables
State the outcome in words as usual, then provide all inferentials except instead of p<, use p>0.05. e.g. t (48) = 1.02, p>0.05
Sometimes, the p is nearly significant, and you might want to point that out: If so, the inferentials are identical other than instead of saying p< you say p= and give the exact p value e.g. F (3, 46) = 5.44, p = 0.059
When stating the effect/difference/correlation in cases where the p is nearly significant , obviously you cannot say the result was significant. There are a few conventional ways of describing nearly significant results e.g. 1 - While men did not score significantly higher than women on the OCI scale, the difference approached significance, t (24) = 3.22, p = 0.052. e.g. 2 - The positive correlation between anxiety and error score was not significant, though there was a trend toward significance, r (10) = 0.56, p = 0.054.
Group Statistics
N
100 100
Mean
31.4000 36.8800
Std. Deviation
20.3663 12.1300
t-test for Equality of Means Std. Error Differe nce 2.3705 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -10.15 -.8053
F Time, in minutes, spent in the bathroom Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 7.03
Sig. .009
t -2.312
df 198
-2.312
161
.022
-5.4800
2.3705
-10.16
-.7988
The first thing to note is the significance of the Levenes test for equality of variances. If the value is more than 0.05 (which it usually is), we use the top row of the t-test output (equal variances assumed). If the value is less than 0.05, we use the bottom row of the ttest output (equal variances not assumed). The significance value from the Levenes test in our output is less than 0.05, so we use the bottom row
Sum of Squares NUMERIC SCORE Between Groups Within Groups Total 5650.87 6120.10 11771.0
df
Mean Square
Sig. .000
Correlations Exam performance (%) Exam performance Pearson 1.000 (%) Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) . N 31 Writing speed Pearson .555** (words per minute) Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .001 N 31 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Writing speed (words per minute) .555** .001 31 1.000 . 31
SEX * SMOKE Crosstabulation - Frequency developing exophasporal cancer SMOKE smokers non-smokers 12 12 7.2 16.8 3 23 7.8 18.2 15 35 15.0 35.0
SEX
male female
Total
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .003 .008 .002 Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square a Continuity Correction Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases
df 1 1 1
.004
a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.20.