Midterm Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Midterm - Assignment ExampleH1 There is no difference in the mean rating of participants by the different judges in the different levels. 4th step Alpha (level of significance) = .05 5th step dftotal = 15 8 = 7 dfBT = 8 8 = 0 dfWT = 15 8= 7 6th step Critical F value = 314.659 Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F scheme df Error df Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powerc Country Pillais Trace .883 314.659b 7.000 293.000 .000 .883 2202.613 1.000 Wilks Lambda .117 314.659b 7.000 293.000 .000 .883 2202.613 1.000 Hotellings Trace 7.517 314.659b 7.000 293.000 .000 .883 2202.613 1.000 Roys Largest Root 7.517 314.659b 7.000 293.000 .000 .883 2202.613 1.000 7th step Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure MEASURE_1 point of reference Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. ... Results it can be concluded that in that location existed a statistically strong difference between the ratings given by the judges whereby, F (8, 393) = 314. 659.74, P=.000 .0005 Wilks ? = 0.117, partial ?2 = .883 (see table below) Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powerc Country Pillais Trace .883 314.659b 7.000 293.000 .000 .883 2202.613 1.000 Wilks Lambda .117 314.659b 7.000 293.000 .000 .883 2202.613 1.000 Hotellings Trace 7.517 314.659b 7.000 293.000 .000 .883 2202.613 1.000 Roys Largest Root 7.517 314.659b 7.000 293.000 .000 .883 2202.613 1.000 Method Participants the data is a product of the International Pancake-Flipping contest, where eighter from Decatur judges rated the flipping styles of 300 competitors. The number of participants is therefore 300 based on the flipping pancake contest and the respective judges ratings. The judges are randomly referred to as judge 1 to judge 8. The results are for different levels across different countries across the 300 participants who form the study sample. A power analysis revealed that, for a one-way MANOVA wit h SMALL effect size (?2 = .883) and an alpha of .05, 300 participants yielded a power of 1.0. Design M ANOVA was used to determine whether there was a difference between the participants rating by the judges across the various levels of participation. The in interdependent variables was the level of participation across the different countries while the dependent variable were the judges ranging from judge one to judge 8 in terms of rating, rated as either high or low. Materials The event organizers were submitted with consent