SAMPLE

REPORTING STATISTICS IN APA FORMAT

A. t-test
t-test table

t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Scores on Research Equal variances assumed 3.079 49 .003
Methodology Equal variances not assumed 3.104 44.402 .003
Scores on Statistics Equal variances assumed -.784 49 .437
Equal variances not assumed -.769 40.117 .446

Descriptive table
Group Statistics

gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Scores on Research female seller 30 60.1000 10.73939 1.96074
Methodology male seller 21 50.8571 10.26784 2.24063
Scores on Statistics female seller 30 66.4667 6.55867 1.19744
male seller 21 68.0000 7.30753 1.59463

Reported table
 Female Male
t-value p-value
n = 30 n = 21
M (SD) M (SD)
Research Methodology 60.10 (10.74) 50.86 (10.27) 3.08 .003
Statistics 66.47 (6.56) 68.00 (7.31) -.78 .437

The t-tests result revealed that female students (M = 60.10, SD = 10.74) reported higher scores in Research Methodology than male students (M
50.86, SD = .10.27; t[49] = 3.08, p< .05).

B. ANOVA

ANOVA
English for business

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 4.057 3 1.352 5.322 .001
Within Groups 250.531 986 .254
Total 254.587 989

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: English for business
Tukey HSD

Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval

(I) year (J) year (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
freshmen sophomore -.072885 .136798 .951 -.42492 .27915
junior -.028697 .137387 .997 -.38225 .32486
senior -.211075 .139974 .433 -.57129 .14914
sophomore freshmen .072885 .136798 .951 -.27915 .42492
junior .044188 .035925 .608 -.04826 .13664
*
senior -.138190 .044814 .011 -.25352 -.02286
junior freshmen .028697 .137387 .997 -.32486 .38225
sophomore -.044188 .035925 .608 -.13664 .04826
*
senior -.182378 .046579 .001 -.30225 -.06251
senior freshmen .211075 .139974 .433 -.14914 .57129
*
sophomore .138190 .044814 .011 .02286 .25352
*
junior .182378 .046579 .001 .06251 .30225

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

Descriptives
English for business
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum

freshmen 14 -.08164 .599233 .160152 -.42763 .26434 -.873 .865

sophomore 450 -.00876 .506568 .023880 -.05569 .03817 -1.481 1.153
junior 350 -.05295 .482282 .025779 -.10365 -.00224 -1.575 1.152
senior 176 .12943 .531673 .040076 .05034 .20853 -1.624 1.200
Total 990 -.00084 .507365 .016125 -.03249 .03080 -1.624 1.200

Reported table:

Sum of Mean
Post hoc
Squares df Square F Sig.

Online reading

English for business Between Groups 4.06 3 1.35 5.32 .00

senior >
Within Groups 250.53 986 .25 sophomore
= junior Comment [np1]: This is a summary of
Total 254.59 989 your post hoc table-and the description
below.

The ANOVA tests revealed the significant difference on students’ English for Business scores by their university year levels (F[3, 986] = 5.32, p = .00, η2 =
.02). The result from the Tukey post hoc analysis showed students in their senior year reported higher scores in English for Business (M = .13, SD = .53) Comment [np2]: You can get this one
compared to both sophomore (M = -.01, SD = .51) and junior students (M = -.05, SD = .48). No other significant differences were found in this dimension by from the above post-hoc and descriptive
tables.
university year.
Comment [np3]: You can get this one
from the above post-hoc and descriptive
tables.
Comment [np4]: You can get this one
from the above post-hoc and descriptive
tables.
Comment [np5]: You can get this one
from the above post-hoc and descriptive
tables.
Regression

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 .170 .029 .026 .589407
a. Predictors: (Constant), PartTime, Language, PhD

a
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

b
1 Regression 10.223 3 3.408 9.809 .000

Residual 343.580 989 .347

Total 353.803 992
a. Dependent Variable: FACTOR SCORE (MPlus) Elaboration in Reading in print (Q48 Q53 Q54)
b. Predictors: (Constant), PartTime, Language, PhD

a
Coefficients
 Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) -.105 .029 -3.596 .000
Language .059 .038 .050 1.575 .116 Comment [np6]: Higher than .05

PhD .148 .039 .119 3.767 .000

PartTime .162 .052 .097 3.093 .002

a. Dependent Variable: FACTOR SCORE (MPlus) Elaboration in Reading in print (Q48 Q53 Q54)

Summary of the regression analysis for variables predicting elaboration in reading in print settings

Variable B SE β t Sig

(Constant) -0.11 .03 -3.60 .00

Language (faculty) 0.06 .04 .05 1.58 .12

PhD (expected education) 0.15 .04 .12 3.77 .00

Part-time (employment status) 0.16 .05 .10 3.09 .00

Students’ use of elaboration strategies in reading in print settings was significantly predicted by their expectation of education attainment

(PhD) (β = .12, p < .01) and employment status(part time) (β = .10, p < .01). According to this model, the students expecting to pursue a
Ph.D. degree were more likely to use elaboration strategies in reading in print settings. Similarly, the predicted scores of elaboration in reading in

print settings for students with part-time job were .16 points higher than for students with no job during their undergraduate study. The language

as a predictor just missed the significance level of p = .05. These three predictors explained 2.9% of the variance [F (3, 992) = 9.81, p < .00].