Chapter 6: Analysing the Data

Part III: Common Statistical

Tests

Example of paired sample ttest

Let us consider a simple example of what is often
termed "pre/post" data or "pretest posttest" data.
Suppose you wish to test the effect of Prozac on the
well-being of depressed individuals, using a
standardised "well-being scale" that sums Likert-type
items to obtain a score that could range from 0 to 20.
Higher scores indicate greater well-being (that is,
Prozac is having a positive effect). While there are
flaws in this design (e.g., lack of a control group) it
will serve as an example of how to analyse such data.
The value that we are interested in is the change
score, and we obtain it by taking the difference
between time 2 and time one. The following snapshot
of an SPSS data window provides the data that we
can work with.

Figure 6.9 Data for the paired sample t test.

Notice that we have subtracted the first score away

from the second to get a difference score or change
score. Person #3's well-being score decreased by one
point at the post-test. Person #5 increased their wellbeing score from 4 point to 10 points. The mean of
the Pretest data is 3.33 and the mean of the Post test
data is 7.0. The question is, "Is this a significant
increase?"
Output 6.5 Compare Means -> Paired Sample T
test

Step 1: Stating the hypotheses:

Ho: md = 0
H1: md

The alternative is two-tailed and alpha = .05

Step 2: Check assumptions

The assumptions underlying the repeated samples ttest are similar to the one-sample t-test but refer to
the set of difference scores.
1. The observations are independent of each other
2. The dependent variable is measured on an interval
scale
3. The differences are normally distributed in the
population.
The

measures

are

approximately

interval

scale

numbers (self-report scores) and we assume that

each person's score has not been influenced by other
people's scores. The numbers look to have no major
extremes or unusual distribution.
Step 3: Calculate test statistic

The output is given in Output 6.5. Detailed comments

on the output follow.
Paired Samples Statistics. Here, the variables
being compared are identified, the Mean, N, Standard
Deviation, and Standard Error of the Mean for each
variable is given.
Paired Samples Correlations. Here the correlation
between each of the pairs of variables is given.
Because this is a repeated measures analysis, the
same people are measured twice. You would expect a
high degree of correlation between the two sets of
scores. A person who was fairly low well-being score
before the treatment should still have a fairly low
well-being score relative to the others after the
treatment, even if everyone improved (e.g., cases
#2). Similarly, someone who had a high well-being
score beforehand will probably have one of the
highest well-being score afterward (e.g., case #2),
even if every one improves by a certain amount.
Here the correlation between the two sets of scores is
quite minimal for real data (you can tell they were
manufactured). There is no consistent pattern of
change (see cases #4 and 8). If there is little
correlation between the two sets of scores, you might
as well be using an Independent Groups T-test.
Paired Samples Test. Table 1. Here the descriptive
statistics for the difference between each pair of
variables is given. The mean difference of 3.67 is

what is actually being tested against zero. Is this a

large number or a small number? Is this difference a
real one or one that we could reasonably expect due
to chance alone?
Notice the 95% Confidence Interval values are also
given here. We do not place much emphasis on these
in this unit. This information says that the true
population mean lies between 6.357 and -.9763
with a 95% probability. Notice the hypothesised
mean of zero does not fall within this range.
Paired Samples Test. Table 2.
The answer! Here we can determine that the chance
of this number occurring by chance alone (given the
null hypothesis) is about .014 (or 1.4%).
Step 4: Evaluate the result

The result is significant t(9) = -3.143, p = .012. We

reject the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative.
Only once or twice out of every 100 times we
repeated this experiment (and the null hypothesis
was true) would we get a t-statistic of this size. We
therefore conclude that it is more likely to have been
due to some systematic, deliberate cause. If all other
confounds are eliminated, this systematic cause must
have
been
the
Prozac
drug.
2
2
2
= (-3.143) /(-3.143) + 9 = 0.523. So, 52.3% of
the variability in well-being scores can be explained
by the use of the drug or not.
Step 5: Interpret the result

A significant increase in well-being occurred (t(9) = 3.14,

p = .012,
2
= .52) in the Prozac treated group compared to

the control group.

We have found strong evidence that Prozac enhances
well-being in depressed individuals. However, the
major lack of controls in this study would suggest we
keep quiet about it until we can repeat the finding
with more stringent safeguards against confounds!

Copyright 2000 University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351. All

rights reserved
Maintained
by
Dr
Email: iprice@turing.une.edu.au

Ian

Price