522 views

Uploaded by Ahhhhhhh

- Dena Bank
- Linear Tests Cheat Sheet
- Career Development and Organizational Commitment: Case study of a Pharmaceutical Organization in United Kingdom
- Jurnal 1 Game
- JennaDeLeon.docx
- 2.Effects of Cooperative Learning on Motivation, Learning Strategy Utilization, and Grammar Achievement.pdf
- Prediction of One Repetition Maximum Strength From Multiple Repetition Maximum Tesing and Anthropometry_2
- Attachment Security; Metaanalysis
- Article Paper on Equity1
- STAT 125 HK Business Statistics Midterm Exam
- Reports 71
- Ancova - Using Spss
- Problem Set 2 Solution
- SticiGui Confidence Intervals
- ANCOVA
- Regression
- Hasil Uji Normalitas SPSS
- SWAT Model Calibration Evaluation
- Regression
- CrossValidationReport-Soal Laporan Kelas a FIXXVplot4wave

You are on page 1of 13

ANCOVA

One Continuous Dependent Variable (DVD Rating) – Interest Rating in DVD

One Categorical/Discrete Independent Variable (Promotion) with four levels (Promotion Group

1, 2, 3, and 4)

One Continuous Covariate (Age) – Actual Age of Consumer

Research Question: Is there a difference in interest ratings of a DVD depending on which type of

promotion is provided controlling for differences in the actual age of the consumer?

UNIANOVA

DVDRating BY Promotion WITH Age

/METHOD = SSTYPE(3)

/INTERCEPT = INCLUDE

/CRITERIA = ALPHA(.05)

/DESIGN = Promotion Age Age*Promotion .

This first table identifies the four levels of the between-subjects factors used in the ANCOVA.

Between-Subjects Factors

N

Promotion 1 25

Group 2 25

3 25

4 25

This analysis is done to check the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes, not to test the main

hypothesis. The factor (Promotion Group) and covariate (Actual Age) do not interact [p (.969) >

(.05)], so the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes has been met.

Type III Sum

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 1667.436a 7 238.205 5.218 .000

Intercept 17079.570 1 17079.570 374.163 .000

Promotion 193.595 3 64.532 1.414 .244

Age 231.690 1 231.690 5.076 .027

Promotion * Age 11.363 3 3.788 .083 .969

Error 4199.564 92 45.647

Total 126276.000 100

Corrected Total 5867.000 99

a. R Squared = .284 (Adjusted R Squared = .230)

ANCOVA Syntax to test the Assumption of Homogeneity of Variance, Linear Relationship between the

Covariate and the Dependent Variable, and the Main Hypothesis

UNIANOVA

DVDRating BY Promotion WITH Age

/METHOD = SSTYPE(3)

/INTERCEPT = INCLUDE

/PLOT = PROFILE( Promotion )

/EMMEANS = TABLES(Promotion) WITH(Age=MEAN)

/PRINT = DESCRIPTIVE HOMOGENEITY

/CRITERIA = ALPHA(.05)

/DESIGN = Age Promotion .

Syntax for ANCOVA to test the main hypothesis

This first table identifies the four levels of the between-subjects factors used in the ANCOVA.

Between-Subjects Factors

N

Promotion 1 25

Group 2 25

3 25

4 25

The following table provides the UNADJUSTED group means and standard deviations.

Descriptive Statistics

Promotion Group Mean Std. Deviation N

1 30.68 6.713 25

2 39.80 6.708 25

3 31.56 6.272 25

4 36.76 7.513 25

Total 34.70 7.698 100

The following table is the Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance. As we can see – this assumption

is met since p (.995) > (.05).

a

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances

F df1 df2 Sig.

.022 3 96 .995

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of

the dependent variable is equal across groups.

a. Design: Intercept+Age+Promotion

ANCOVA EXAMPLE

PAGE 2

If the Assumption of Homogeneity of Variance had not be met (found significant) – this is not a

major problem if the cell sizes are equal (i.e., the largest group size is not more than 1½ times

greater than the smallest group size). This is the case for two reasons, first, the ANCOVA

statistic is a robust statistic and second, because of the way SPSS calculates the ANCOVA

(Leech, Barrett, & Morgan, 2005).

The following table actually serves two purposes… First, we use it to test if there is a linear relationship

between the covariate and the dependent variable. As we can see – there is a (significant) linear

relationship between the covariate (Age) and the dependent variable (DVD Rating) since p (.020) < α

(.05).

Type III Sum

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 1656.073a 4 414.018 9.340 .000

Intercept 17505.917 1 17505.917 394.940 .000

Age 249.233 1 249.233 5.623 .020

Promotion 1323.306 3 441.102 9.951 .000

Error 4210.927 95 44.326

Total 126276.000 100

Corrected Total 5867.000 99

a. R Squared = .282 (Adjusted R Squared = .252)

The following table is the test of the main hypothesis… Here we see that the Promotion Group Main

Effect is significant [p (.000) < (.05)] controlling for the effect of age. Because we found a significant

main effect – and there are more than two levels for the independent variable – we will need to conduct

follow-up procedures (i.e., post hoc procedures or multiple comparisons tests) to determine significant

pairwise differences.

Type III Sum

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 1656.073a 4 414.018 9.340 .000

Intercept 17505.917 1 17505.917 394.940 .000

Age 249.233 1 249.233 5.623 .020

Promotion 1323.306 3 441.102 9.951 .000

Error 4210.927 95 44.326

Total 126276.000 100

Corrected Total 5867.000 99

a. R Squared = .282 (Adjusted R Squared = .252)

The covariate is included in the analysis to control for differences on this variable and is not the

focus of the main analysis (it is used to test the linear relationship between the covariate and the

dependent variable as noted above). Consequently, the results of the covariate are frequently not

reported in a Results section.

ANCOVA EXAMPLE

PAGE 3

Since we found a significant between-subjects main effect, we will want to calculate the measure of

association, omega squared (ω2). Calculating the measure of association (omega squared) for the

ANCOVA is very similar to that for the One-Way ANOVA. We only need to make a few minor

adjustments to the formula – to account for the adjusted values of interest…

SS B' − ( K − 1) MSW'

ω =

2

SS T' + MSW'

ω2 = = = = = .201363

5867.000 + 44.326 5911.326 5911.326 5911.326

ω2 = .20, which means that the four levels of promotion group (the independent variable) account for

approximately 20% of the total variance in the individual’s interest rating of the DVD (the

dependent variable) controlling for the effect of the actual age of the individuals (the covariate).

The following table shows the adjusted group means… These means are adjusted for the covariate.

Promotion Group

95% Confidence Interval

Promotion Group Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 30.883a 1.334 28.234 33.532

2 39.882 a 1.332 37.238 42.527

3 31.695a 1.333 29.050 34.341

4 36.339 a 1.343 33.672 39.006

a. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following

values: Actual Age = 36.28.

Note the difference between the unadjusted and the adjusted means… For this example – they

are relatively the same – however, depending on the effect (influence) of the covariate – these

means can be notably different.

ANCOVA EXAMPLE

PAGE 4

Profile Plots

40

38

Estimated Marginal Means

36

34

32

30

1 2 3 4

Promotion Group

The Profile Plot will give us a visual picture of what is going on with our study. As we can see the line

represents the estimated marginal means for the interest rating in DVD at each of the levels of

promotion. These values correspond to those found in the estimated marginal means table.

Because we found a significant between-subjects main effect – and there are four levels to our

independent variable – we will need to conduct a follow-up test to determine where any significant

pairwise differences are.

One option is to use the lmatrix syntax command which uses the appropriate error term to make pairwise

comparisons. We will still need to control for Type I error. While there are several methods from which

to choose – we will use the Bonferroni adjustment (alpha divided by the number of comparisons).

ANCOVA EXAMPLE

PAGE 5

Syntax for the lmatrix command

UNIANOVA

DVDRating BY Promotion WITH Age

/METHOD = SSTYPE(3)

/lmatrix 'Promotion Group 1 vs Promotion Group 2'

promotion 1 -1 0 0

/lmatrix 'Promotion Group 1 vs Promotion Group 3'

promotion 1 0 -1 0

/lmatrix 'Promotion Group 1 vs Promotion Group 4'

promotion 1 0 0 -1

/lmatrix 'Promotion Group 2 vs Promotion Group 3'

promotion 0 1 -1 0

/lmatrix 'Promotion Group 2 vs Promotion Group 4'

promotion 0 1 0 -1

/lmatrix 'Promotion Group 3 vs Promotion Group 4'

promotion 0 0 1 -1.

Because we use the top three lines of the ANCOVA syntax – we will get a few redundant tables… i.e.,

the Between-Subjects Factors and the Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. These can be ignored here.

Between-Subjects Factors

N

Promotion 1 25

Group 2 25

3 25

4 25

Type III Sum

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 1656.073a 4 414.018 9.340 .000

Intercept 17505.917 1 17505.917 394.940 .000

Age 249.233 1 249.233 5.623 .020

Promotion 1323.306 3 441.102 9.951 .000

Error 4210.927 95 44.326

Total 126276.000 100

Corrected Total 5867.000 99

a. R Squared = .282 (Adjusted R Squared = .252)

ANCOVA EXAMPLE

PAGE 6

The following table provides a summary of the lmatrix syntax that we just requested. For this analysis –

there is no pertinent information contained in this table – as such, it too can be ignored.

1 Contrast Coefficients LMATRIX

(L' Matrix) Subcommand 1:

Promotion Group 1 vs

Promotion Group 2

Transformation

Identity Matrix

Coefficients (M Matrix)

Contrast Results (K

Zero Matrix

Matrix)

2 Contrast Coefficients LMATRIX

(L' Matrix) Subcommand 2:

Promotion Group 1 vs

Promotion Group 3

Transformation

Identity Matrix

Coefficients (M Matrix)

Contrast Results (K

Zero Matrix

Matrix)

3 Contrast Coefficients LMATRIX

(L' Matrix) Subcommand 3:

Promotion Group 1 vs

Promotion Group 4

Transformation

Identity Matrix

Coefficients (M Matrix)

Contrast Results (K

Zero Matrix

Matrix)

4 Contrast Coefficients LMATRIX

(L' Matrix) Subcommand 4:

Promotion Group 2 vs

Promotion Group 3

Transformation

Identity Matrix

Coefficients (M Matrix)

Contrast Results (K

Zero Matrix

Matrix)

5 Contrast Coefficients LMATRIX

(L' Matrix) Subcommand 5:

Promotion Group 2 vs

Promotion Group 4

Transformation

Identity Matrix

Coefficients (M Matrix)

Contrast Results (K

Zero Matrix

Matrix)

6 Contrast Coefficients LMATRIX

(L' Matrix) Subcommand 6:

Promotion Group 3 vs

Promotion Group 4

Transformation

Identity Matrix

Coefficients (M Matrix)

Contrast Results (K

Zero Matrix

Matrix)

ANCOVA EXAMPLE

PAGE 7

This first set of information provides the pairwise comparison of Promotion Group 1 vs. Promotion

Group 2.

Note the -8.999 – this is the adjusted mean difference of Promotion Group 1 (M = 30.883) and

Promotion Group 2 (M = 39.882). The negative value is simply because of the order (low – high =

negative). Typically, we would report the absolute value (i.e., 9.00).

Dependent

Variable

Interest

Contrast Rating in DVD

L1 Contrast Estimate -8.999

Hypothesized Value 0

Difference (Estimate - Hypothesized)

-8.999

Std. Error 1.884

Sig. .000

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound -12.739

for Difference Upper Bound -5.259

a. Based on the user-specified contrast coefficients (L') matrix: Promotion

Group 1 vs Promotion Group 2

Note the footnote (a) provides a reminder of which groups are being compared… that is, provided we

indicated that in the lmatrix syntax. While the above table also indicates significance – it does not

provide us with the F values needed to put into a report.

The following table provides the necessary information to determine if the group difference is

significant. In this case we see F(1, 95) = 22.821, p < .001 – indicating that Promotion Group 1 is

significantly different from Promotion Group 2. This is compared to our adjusted alpha level

(Bonferroni adjustment) of .0083 ( /3 = .05/6 = .0083). A review of the group means shows that

Promotion Group 1 (M = 30.883) is significantly lower than Promotion Group 2 (M = 39.882) on their

DVD interest levels controlling for age.

Test Results

Sum of

Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Contrast 1011.540 1 1011.540 22.821 .000

Error 4210.927 95 44.326

Because we found a significant difference – we will need to follow this up with the calculation of an

Effect Size. Don’t forget to use the appropriate error term (MS’W = 44.326) which we get from the above

table. To calculate the effect size (adjusted Cohen’s d), we use the following formula:

ANCOVA EXAMPLE

PAGE 8

X 'i − X 'k

dˆ = where '

MSerror = 44.326 = 6.6578

'

MSerror

8.999

dˆ = = 1.351648 = 1.35

6.6578

This next set of information provides the pairwise comparison of Promotion Group 1 vs. Promotion

Group 3.

Note the -.812 – this is the adjusted mean difference of Promotion Group 1 (M = 30.883) and Promotion

Group 3 (M = 31.695). The negative is simply because of the order (low – high = negative). Typically,

we would report the absolute value (i.e., .81).

Dependent

Variable

Interest

Contrast Rating in DVD

L1 Contrast Estimate -.812

Hypothesized Value 0

Difference (Estimate - Hypothesized)

-.812

Std. Error 1.883

Sig. .667

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound -4.551

for Difference Upper Bound 2.927

a. Based on the user-specified contrast coefficients (L') matrix: Promotion

Group 1 vs Promotion Group 3

The following table provides the necessary information to determine if the group difference is

significant. In this case we see F(1, 95) =.186, p = .667 – indicating that Promotion Group 1 is not

significantly different from Promotion Group 3. This is compared to our adjusted alpha level

(Bonferroni adjustment) of .0083 ( /3 = .05/6 = .0083). A review of the group means shows that while

Promotion Group 1 (M = 30.883) is lower than Promotion Group 3 (M = 31.695) on their DVD interest

levels controlling for age, it is not significantly different.

Test Results

Sum of

Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Contrast 8.245 1 8.245 .186 .667

Error 4210.927 95 44.326

Because no significant difference was found for these two groups – no Effect Size needs to be

calculated.

ANCOVA EXAMPLE

PAGE 9

This next set of information provides the pairwise comparison of Promotion Group 1 vs. Promotion

Group 4.

Note the -5.456 – this is the adjusted mean difference of Promotion Group 1 (M = 30.883) and

Promotion Group 4 (M = 36.339). The negative is simply because of the order (low – high = negative).

Typically, we would report the absolute value (i.e., 5.46).

Dependent

Variable

Interest

Contrast Rating in DVD

L1 Contrast Estimate -5.456

Hypothesized Value 0

Difference (Estimate - Hypothesized)

-5.456

Std. Error 1.901

Sig. .005

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound -9.231

for Difference Upper Bound -1.681

a. Based on the user-specified contrast coefficients (L') matrix: Promotion

Group 1 vs Promotion Group 4

The following table provides the necessary information to determine if the group difference is

significant. In this case we see F(1, 95) = 8.233, p = .005 – indicating that Promotion Group 1 is

significantly different from Promotion Group 4. This is compared to our adjusted alpha level

(Bonferroni adjustment) of .0083 ( /3 = .05/6 = .0083). A review of the group means shows that

Promotion Group 1 (M = 30.883) is significantly lower than Promotion Group 4 (M = 36.339) on their

DVD interest levels controlling for age.

Test Results

Sum of

Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Contrast 364.941 1 364.941 8.233 .005

Error 4210.927 95 44.326

Because we found a significant difference – we will need to follow this up with the calculation of an

Effect Size. Don’t forget to use the appropriate error term (MS’W = 44.326) which we get from the above

table.

ˆ

d= dˆ = = .819490 = .82

'

MSerror 6.6578

ANCOVA EXAMPLE

PAGE 10

This next set of information provides the pairwise comparison of Promotion Group 2 vs. Promotion

Group 3.

Note the 8.187 – this is the adjusted mean difference of Promotion Group 2 (M = 39.882) and Promotion

Group 3 (M = 31.695).

Dependent

Variable

Interest

Contrast Rating in DVD

L1 Contrast Estimate 8.187

Hypothesized Value 0

Difference (Estimate - Hypothesized)

8.187

Std. Error 1.883

Sig. .000

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound 4.448

for Difference Upper Bound 11.925

a. Based on the user-specified contrast coefficients (L') matrix: Promotion

Group 2 vs Promotion Group 3

The following table provides the necessary information to determine if the group difference is

significant. In this case we see F(1, 95) = 18.898, p < .001 – indicating that Promotion Group 2 is

significantly different from Promotion Group 3. This is compared to our adjusted alpha level

(Bonferroni adjustment) of .0083 ( /3 = .05/6 = .0083). A review of the group means shows that

Promotion Group 2 (M = 39.882) is significantly higher than Promotion Group 3 (M = 31.695) on their

DVD interest levels controlling for age.

Test Results

Sum of

Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Contrast 837.672 1 837.672 18.898 .000

Error 4210.927 95 44.326

Because we found a significant difference – we will need to follow this up with the calculation of an

Effect Size. Don’t forget to use the appropriate error term (MS’W = 44.326) which we get from the above

table.

dˆ = dˆ = = 1.229685 = 1.23

'

MSerror 6.6578

ANCOVA EXAMPLE

PAGE 11

This next set of information provides the pairwise comparison of Promotion Group 2 vs. Promotion

Group 4.

Note the 3.543 – this is the adjusted mean difference of Promotion Group 2 (M = 39.882) and Promotion

Group 4 (M = 36.339).

Dependent

Variable

Interest

Contrast Rating in DVD

L1 Contrast Estimate 3.543

Hypothesized Value 0

Difference (Estimate - Hypothesized)

3.543

Std. Error 1.895

Sig. .065

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound -.219

for Difference Upper Bound 7.305

a. Based on the user-specified contrast coefficients (L') matrix: Promotion

Group 2 vs Promotion Group 4

The following table provides the necessary information to determine if the group difference is

significant. In this case we see F(1, 95) = 3.496, p = .065 – indicating that Promotion Group 2 is not

significantly different from Promotion Group 4. This is compared to our adjusted alpha level

(Bonferroni adjustment) of .0083 ( /3 = .05/6 = .0083). A review of the group means shows that while

Promotion Group 2 (M = 39.882) is higher than Promotion Group 4 (M = 36.339) on their DVD interest

levels controlling for age, it is not significantly different.

Test Results

Sum of

Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Contrast 154.963 1 154.963 3.496 .065

Error 4210.927 95 44.326

Because no significant difference was found for these two groups – no Effect Size needs to be

calculated.

ANCOVA EXAMPLE

PAGE 12

This next set of information provides the pairwise comparison of Promotion Group 3 vs. Promotion

Group 4.

Note the -4.644 – this is the adjusted mean difference of Promotion Group 3 (M = 31.695) and

Promotion Group 4 (M = 36.339). The negative is simply because of the order (low – high = negative).

Typically, we would report the absolute value (i.e., 4.64).

Dependent

Variable

Interest

Contrast Rating in DVD

L1 Contrast Estimate -4.644

Hypothesized Value 0

Difference (Estimate - Hypothesized)

-4.644

Std. Error 1.898

Sig. .016

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound -8.411

for Difference Upper Bound -.876

a. Based on the user-specified contrast coefficients (L') matrix: Promotion

Group 3 vs Promotion Group 4

The following table provides the necessary information to determine if the group difference is

significant. In this case we see F(1, 95) = 5.988, p = .016 – indicating that Promotion Group 3 is not

significantly different from Promotion Group 4. This is compared to our adjusted alpha level

(Bonferroni adjustment) of .0083 ( /3 = .05/6 = .0083). A review of the group means shows that while

Promotion Group 3 (M = 31.695) is lower than Promotion Group 4 (M = 36.339) on their DVD interest

levels controlling for age, it is not significantly different.

Test Results

Sum of

Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Contrast 265.410 1 265.410 5.988 .016

Error 4210.927 95 44.326

Because no significant difference was found for these two groups – no Effect Size needs to be

calculated.

ANCOVA EXAMPLE

PAGE 13

- Dena BankUploaded byShikha Agrawal
- Linear Tests Cheat SheetUploaded byJabber Srivistan
- Career Development and Organizational Commitment: Case study of a Pharmaceutical Organization in United KingdomUploaded byIJSRP ORG
- Jurnal 1 GameUploaded byTasya Chaca
- JennaDeLeon.docxUploaded byGilberto Pereira
- 2.Effects of Cooperative Learning on Motivation, Learning Strategy Utilization, and Grammar Achievement.pdfUploaded bypian
- Prediction of One Repetition Maximum Strength From Multiple Repetition Maximum Tesing and Anthropometry_2Uploaded bySandal Jepun
- Attachment Security; MetaanalysisUploaded byMindGrace
- Article Paper on Equity1Uploaded bytejal panchal
- STAT 125 HK Business Statistics Midterm ExamUploaded byandrebaldwin
- Reports 71Uploaded byDini Kohandi
- Ancova - Using SpssUploaded byazzury
- Problem Set 2 SolutionUploaded bypntgaur54185
- SticiGui Confidence IntervalsUploaded byahmedidrees1992
- ANCOVAUploaded bySachin Arde
- RegressionUploaded byptarwatkar
- Hasil Uji Normalitas SPSSUploaded by260290300490
- SWAT Model Calibration EvaluationUploaded byAnonymous BVbpSE
- RegressionUploaded byRaja Sazila
- CrossValidationReport-Soal Laporan Kelas a FIXXVplot4waveUploaded byPuspita Ayuningthyas
- Analytical Skills IllustrationUploaded byMichael Vuha
- Data Set 1 - Real EstateUploaded bySam Rathore
- Auto Titrator AnalysisUploaded byKaushal Rai
- analisis regresiUploaded byRiany Hehe
- 2001. Khalil Et Al. the Effect of Acetylation on Interfacial Shear Strength Between Plants Fibres and Various MatricesUploaded byMilene Eloy
- A577CD017017.pdfUploaded byjnf
- panel-data.pdfUploaded byikin sodikin
- 10780-13111-1-PB.pdfUploaded bySani Ahamed
- Forecast Daily Sales of Dairy Products PRESENTATIONUploaded bymakreloaded
- Doug Bates Mixed ModelsUploaded byDuy Nguyen

- “Face Validity” Differences between Locally Published and Highest Level International Journals Based on the In-Text Citations ApproachUploaded byAhhhhhhh
- Imamo korice, sad treba napisati knjigu - Predstavljenost naučnih časopisa Republike Srpske u elektronskoj formiUploaded byAhhhhhhh
- fonoloska slozenostUploaded bynnneda
- Pregled metoda za utvrđivanje broja faktora i komponenti (u EFA i PCA)Uploaded byAhhhhhhh
- Analysis of a Complex of Statistical Variables Into Principal ComponentsUploaded byAhhhhhhh
- Schizophrenia—an evolutionary enigmaUploaded byAhhhhhhh
- Enhancing Validity in Phonological Awareness Assessment Through Computer-Supported TestingUploaded byAhhhhhhh

- 2017 BESC Scholarship ApplicationUploaded bySeth Rothstein
- Dynamic FactorUploaded byShivaskaran Kanthalingam
- Mobile Banking Soft (1)Uploaded byMD. JAHID
- FAULT TOLERANT WIRELESS SENSOR MAC PROTOCOL FOR EFFICIENT COLLISION AVOIDANCEUploaded byMegan Bell
- Notes on Grouper Lapu Culture in the PhilippinesUploaded byedendereze6026
- 100+ Robotics Projects for Final Year Engineering StudentsUploaded byPragathi Reddy
- Language and Learning in i b ProgrammesUploaded byesuso
- Seismic Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing BuildingsUploaded byAsia Ward
- Synthesis of Magnesium Oxide LabUploaded bynmvenkatesh
- 33.1schriftUploaded byRamon Guillermo
- MQ - Mechanics of the Quantum - Property 5 - Hydrogen Energy Level Ratios From Counting Compressed Quanta - ScribdUploaded byKoen Van Spaendonck
- March 22, 2010 issueUploaded byThe Brown Daily Herald
- Schütz - 1951 - Making Music Tohether a Study in Social RelationshipUploaded byKily Cortés Rodríguez
- 211 Translational EquilibUploaded byapi-3759956
- Bradley M2 IFV Procedure guides: EvaluationUploaded byskylancer-3441
- Introduction to Digital Communication.pptxUploaded byAries Richard Rosales
- A Symmary of Diagonal Tension Part 1 Methods and AnalysisUploaded byVesa Räisänen
- Albert - Yanomami ViolenceUploaded byDouglas Ferreira Gadelha Campelo
- Errores SQLUploaded byabuitrago81
- Review of Bejan Design in NatureUploaded byMark Dickson
- NSTSE Class 8 SolutionUploaded byMota Chashma
- Italian Feminism, Workerism and Autonomy in the 1970s the Struggle Against Unpaid Reproductive Labour and Violence - Patrick CuninghameUploaded bywe
- Proceedings of the National Workshop on INTRODUCING YOGA IN MEDICAL CURRICULUMUploaded byYogacharya Dr Ananda Balayogi Bhavanani
- Exp 9 Lab Report Vincent.liUploaded bymrvincentli
- STATISTICS FOR BUSINESS - CHAP05 - Sampling and Sampling Distribution.pdfUploaded byHoang Nguyen
- xftim 0807Uploaded byrstsyn
- Assignment 2 PromUploaded byRussel Renz de Mesa
- Beyond the Ivory Tower - Rethinking Translation PedagogyUploaded byNita Tatiana
- Kinematics Table Tennis RolUploaded byRolando Nina
- 04 Lagrange Multipliers SVUploaded byLoady Das