PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH

Psychology Research Data Analysis

Psychology Research Data Analysis

Study 1

A psychologist was interested in evaluating if interactive smart board task improved Math tests scores in 12 year old students. A study was designed in which a third of the class were taught Math lessons using traditional books and the other third using interactive DVDs and the last third using interactive smart board.

Participants had their pre and post math level taken using a standardised test and a difference scores was utilised as the dependant variable.

The table below outlines the data collected in that study

Table one Study type and Difference score

Books

DVD

Smartboards

38

47

67

37

49

69

42

52

68

44

56

63

39

58

78

36

60

74

42

55

73

46

49

72

44

54

75

42

62

77

39

61

70

1. Hypothesis

2.Null hypothesis

Math lessons test score does not increases by using traditional books, interactive DVDs interactive smart board.

3.. Alternate hypothesis

Math lessons test score increases by using traditional books, interactive DVDs interactive smart board.

ANOVA

mathlesson

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

5174.970

2

2587.485

134.765

.000

Within Groups

576.000

30

19.200

Total

5750.970

32

From above ANOVA table we conclude that as p value is less than .05 so we reject null hypothesis and conclude that Math lessons test score increases by using traditional books, interactive DVDs interactive smart board.

Descriptive Statistics Of Math Test Score

Case Summariesa

mathlesson

factor

book

1

38.00

2

37.00

3

42.00

4

44.00

5

39.00

6

36.00

7

42.00

8

46.00

9

44.00

10

42.00

11

39.00

Total

N

11

Mean

40.8182

Median

42.0000

Grouped Median

40.8000

Minimum

36.00

Maximum

46.00

Std. Deviation

3.21926

DvDs

1

47.00

2

49.00

3

52.00

4

56.00

5

58.00

6

60.00

7

55.00

8

49.00

9

54.00

10

62.00

11

61.00

Total

N

11

Mean

54.8182

Median

55.0000

Grouped Median

55.0000

Minimum

47.00

Maximum

62.00

Std. Deviation

5.15399

smartboards

1

67.00

2

69.00

3

68.00

4

63.00

5

78.00

6

74.00

7

73.00

8

72.00

9

75.00

10

77.00

11

70.00

Total

N

11

Mean

71.4545

Median

72.0000

Grouped Median

72.0000

Minimum

63.00

Maximum

78.00

Std. Deviation

4.54673

Total

N

33

Mean

55.6970

Median

55.0000

Grouped Median

55.0000

Minimum

36.00

Maximum

78.00

Std. Deviation

13.40589

a. Limited to first 100 cases.

Statistics

books

DVDs

smartboards

N

Valid

11

11

11

Missing

0

0

0

Mean

40.8182

54.8182

71.4545

Mode

42.00

49.00

63.00a

Std. Deviation

3.21926

5.15399

4.54673

Range

10.00

15.00

15.00

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

Smartboards is more effective techniques to increases the math test score of 12 year old students as mean of smartboard is 71.454 which is high as compare to other techniques used by psychologist.

books (Binned)

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

<= 36.00

1

9.1

9.1

9.1

37.00 - 38.50

2

18.2

18.2

27.3

38.51 - 41.00

2

18.2

18.2

45.5

42.00 - 43.50

3

27.3

27.3

72.7

43.51+

3

27.3

27.3

100.0

Total

11

100.0

100.0

DVDs (Binned)

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

<= 47.00

1

9.1

9.1

9.1

48.00 - 50.00

2

18.2

18.2

27.3

51.00 - 53.00

1

9.1

9.1

36.4

54.00 - 56.00

3

27.3

27.3

63.6

57.00 - 59.00

1

9.1

9.1

72.7

60.00+

3

27.3

27.3

100.0

Total

11

100.0

100.0

smartboards (Binned)

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

<= 63.00

1

9.1

9.1

9.1

67.00 - 69.00

3

27.3

27.3

36.4

70.00 - 72.00

2

18.2

18.2

54.5

73.00 - 75.00

3

27.3

27.3

81.8

76.00+

2

18.2

18.2

100.0

Total

11

100.0

100.0

4.Post Hoc

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable:mathlesson

(I) factor

(J) factor

Mean Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Tukey HSD

book

DvDs

-14.00000*

1.86840

.000

-18.6061

-9.3939

smartboards

-30.63636*

1.86840

.000

-35.2425

-26.0303

DvDs

book

14.00000*

1.86840

.000

9.3939

18.6061

smartboards

-16.63636*

1.86840

.000

-21.2425

-12.0303

smartboards

book

30.63636*

1.86840

.000

26.0303

35.2425

DvDs

16.63636*

1.86840

.000

12.0303

21.2425

LSD

book

DvDs

-14.00000*

1.86840

.000

-17.8158

-10.1842

smartboards

-30.63636*

1.86840

.000

-34.4521

-26.8206

DvDs

book

14.00000*

1.86840

.000

10.1842

17.8158

smartboards

-16.63636*

1.86840

.000

-20.4521

-12.8206

smartboards

book

30.63636*

1.86840

.000

26.8206

34.4521

DvDs

16.63636*

1.86840

.000

12.8206

20.4521

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

mathlesson

factor

N

Subset for alpha = 0.05

1

2

3

Tukey HSDa

book

11

40.8182

DvDs

11

54.8182

smartboards

11

71.4545

Sig.

1.000

1.000

1.000

Duncana

book

11

40.8182

DvDs

11

54.8182

smartboards

11

71.4545

Sig.

1.000

1.000

1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 11.000.

Using propensity score equivalent to conceive mail hoc command assemblies, we analyzed the influence of the program with esteem to (a) supplying inputs to schools to support student literacy and numeracy and (b) advancing student discovering conclusions in Grades. We in evaluation the allowance of inputs obtained by program schools with inputs obtained by command schools, as described by principals and school employees, and discovered higher grades of provision and larger support for literacy and numeracy in program schools than in the command schools. Specifically, program schools described obtaining more innovative mathematics and literacy programs, more in-service teaching for educators and asset educators, more governance and authority teaching for principals, more supplementary reading and math components, more computer use in schools and better linkages of task schools with the nationwide learning administration and data system. However, a high percentage of the non-program schools furthermore had these inputs, proposing that other programs or donors were hardworking in these schools.

Although program schools obtained somewhat more inputs than non-program schools, young children in program schools did not illustrate higher grades of mean literacy or numeracy than those in the evaluation schools, after taking into account school-level baseline ...