MHB Correcting a 2 x 3 Factorial ANOVA Chart

  • Thread starter Thread starter MWR
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    anova Factorial
MWR
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Have I completed this 2 x 3 factorial ANOVA chart correctly?

A sample of ¬N = 36 is recruited to participate in a study about speech errors. The researchers believe that there is an interaction between whether the speaker is distracted (distracted or not distracted) and the difficulty of the speech they’re asked to present (low, medium, or high) on the number of speech errors. They hypothesize that the participants who are distracted who have a high difficulty speech will make the most errors. The data from this experiment were examined using a 2 x 3 factorial ANOVA. The results are presented in the following summary table.

Source SS df MS F

Between Treat. 39.2 5
Factor A 11.2 1 11.2 Fa = 4.00
Factor B 20 2 10 Fb = 5
AxB 8 2 4 Faxb = 2
Within Treat. 84 30 2.8
Total 123.2 35Thanks in advance for your help,

Ryan

- - - Updated - - -

I apologize for the format.
MWR said:
Have I completed this 2 x 3 factorial ANOVA chart correctly?

A sample of ¬N = 36 is recruited to participate in a study about speech errors. The researchers believe that there is an interaction between whether the speaker is distracted (distracted or not distracted) and the difficulty of the speech they’re asked to present (low, medium, or high) on the number of speech errors. They hypothesize that the participants who are distracted who have a high difficulty speech will make the most errors. The data from this experiment were examined using a 2 x 3 factorial ANOVA. The results are presented in the following summary table.

Source SS df MS F

Between Treat. 39.2 5
Factor A 11.2 1 11.2 Fa = 4.00
Factor B 20 2 10 Fb = 5
AxB 8 2 4 Faxb = 2
Within Treat. 84 30 2.8
Total 123.2 35Thanks in advance for your help,

Ryan
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi there. Can you try putting this info into a table? That will make it easier for us to read. Click on this button. View attachment 3576

With ANOVA tables it's all about making sure everything adds up, especially the degrees of freedom. I'll do my best to look it over when it's readable. :)
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-11-19 at 8.26.03 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-11-19 at 8.26.03 PM.png
    661 bytes · Views: 103
Unfortunately, I am unable to view your picture. Also, I am not able to upload a .docx file either.

Jameson said:
Hi there. Can you try putting this info into a table? That will make it easier for us to read. Click on this button. View attachment 3576

With ANOVA tables it's all about making sure everything adds up, especially the degrees of freedom. I'll do my best to look it over when it's readable. :)
 
That's weird that you can't see my picture. Are you using a phone or tablet maybe?

Anyway, click the first button on the fourth row all the way to the left. It looks grid like.

Here is an example of a table.

[table="width: 500, class:grid"]
[tr]
[td]A[/td]
[td]B[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]C[/td]
[td]D[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
 
Jameson, perhaps the OP assumed there was an image to view by clicking the image you posted.

MWR, Jameson is referring to the following button on our toolbar:

View attachment 3578

Click that button and it will allow you to define a table for presenting your data. :D
 

Attachments

  • table-button.png
    table-button.png
    18.6 KB · Views: 105
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top