Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Leora Fisher
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Graph A1
Univariate Outliers
Graph A2
confidence in ability
hours of math
to do math
250
250
250
41.4483
12.5334
27.5500
10.83725
2.95483
5.25000
Leora Fisher
Graph A3
Graph A4
Leora Fisher
Valid
confidence in
homework per
teacher math
ability to do math
month
support
250
250
250
Skewness
.222
.940
-.027
.154
.154
.154
-.376
2.994
-.512
.307
.307
.307
Missing
Kurtosis
Std. Error of Kurtosis
Graph A5
Graph A7
Graph A6
Leora Fisher
Pearson Correlation
per month
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
confidence in
homework per
teacher math
ability to do
month
support
math
-.033
.429**
.599
.000
250
250
250
-.033
.053
Sig. (2-tailed)
.599
250
250
250
**
.053
.429
.406
confidence in ability to do
Pearson Correlation
math
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.406
250
250
250
Multiple Regression
Do the number of hours spent completing math homework and a higher level of
teacher support positively influence the level of student confidence in their math
abilities? To run the regression the standard enter method was used for entering the
independent variables, to see how they contribute together for the dependent variable of
Confidence in ability to do math as the model (Model 1). An examination of the
descriptive statistics of the variables initially shows some difference in variability
between confidence in ability to do math and the independent variables of Hours of math
homework and Teacher math support. The standard deviation of 10.84 for Confidence in
math ability indicates that there may be unequal variance. However, a large sample size
of 250 participants should be sufficient to account for any violations to assumptions.
Correlations between the independent variables are low, ranging from -.033 to
.300 which shows low collinearity. Correlations between the dependent variable
(Confidence in ability to do math) and independent variables are illustrated in Table B2
and are low/moderate at .429 for hours math homework per month. A low correlation at
.053 for teacher math support and math confidence is demonstrated. The highest
correlation is between hours of math homework and confidence in ability to do math at
.429.
Leora Fisher
Leora Fisher
Std. Deviation
41.4483
10.83725
250
12.5334
2.95483
250
27.5500
5.25000
250
Table B2
Correlations
Pearson
confidence in ability to do
Correlation
math
confidence in ability to
teacher math
do math
per month
support
1.000
.429
.053
.429
1.000
-.033
.053
-.033
1.000
.000
.203
.000
.300
.203
.300
confidence in ability to do
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
confidence in ability to do
math
hours of math homework
per month
math
hours of math homework
per month
teacher math support
Table B3
ANOVAb
Model
1
Sum of Squares
Regression
df
Mean Square
5511.061
2755.531
Residual
23732.963
247
96.085
Total
29244.024
a. Predictors: (Constant), teacher math support, hours of math homework per month
b. Dependent Variable: confidence in ability to do math
Sig.
28.678
.000a
Leora Fisher
Model
Adjusted R
R Square
Square
Square
Estimate
Change
Change
df1 df2
28.678
2 247
.434a
.188
.182
9.80229
.188
Sig. F
Durbin-
Change
Watson
.000
a. Predictors: (Constant), teacher math support, hours of math homework per month
b. Dependent Variable: confidence in ability to do math
Table B5
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
Collinearity
Correlations
Std.
Model
1 (Constant)
hours of math
Error
Statistics
ZeroBeta
Sig.
order
VIF
17.812
4.307
4.136 .000
1.581
.210
.429
.431 .431
.999 1.001
.139
.118
.053
.074 .067
.999 1.001
homework per
month
teacher math
support
a. Dependent Variable: confidence in ability to do math
Table B6
Statistics
Mahalanobis Distance
N
Valid
Missing
Skewness
Std. Error of Skewness
Kurtosis
Std. Error of Kurtosis
250
0
3.445
.154
14.743
.307
1.930
Leora Fisher
Minimum
Cook's Distance
250
Valid N (listwise)
250
Maximum
.00000
.22139
Mean
Std. Deviation
.0046846
.01599370
Table B8
Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Variance Proportions
Condition
Model Dimension Eigenvalue
1
Index
(Constant)
teacher math
month
support
2.940
1.000
.00
.01
.00
.046
7.996
.01
.67
.30
.014
14.745
.99
.33
.69
Graph B1
Graph B2
Leora Fisher
10
MANOVA
Research questions that are addressed by the MANOVA involve determining the
differences in the variables contributing to increased confidence in ability to do math, and
any group differences between boys and girls between these variables. The grouping data
shows that we have groups of similar size that contribute to the overall robustness of the
results (Table C1). Boxs Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices was .121, meaning
that we can assume that covariances are equal as non-significance was found (Table C2).
Bartletts Test of Sphericity shows that the variables are correlated enough to use in the
multivariate analysis (Table C3). In addition, Wilks Lambda was significant at .949,
which indicates the necessity of further analysis. Equal variance across groups can be
assumed as non-significance was found in the Levenes Test. (Table C5). The other
variables were found to be non-significant for group differences. There is low correlation
between most variables as seen in the Residual SSCP Matrix (Table C7). The profile
plots show that estimated marginal means of all the variables are within a small range
which means that there are no suspected significant group differences.
A series of post hoc tests were run with the result that no significant difference
was found with any of the variables between groups (Table C9). The Tukey HSD
homogeneous subsets also show that there are no significant differences between groups
on the variables. Therefore, we can assume that there are no statistically significant
differences in the variables contributing to confidence in math ability, and no large group
differences exist in the sample. The correlation between hours of homework and
confidence in ability, and the influence of hours of homework on the groupings are the
Leora Fisher
11
1.00
88
2.00
90
3.00
72
Table C2
Box's Test of Equality of Covariance
Matricesa
Box's M
18.142
1.485
df1
12
df2
269475.410
Sig.
.121
Table C3
Bartlett's Test of Sphericitya
Likelihood Ratio
Approx. Chi-Square
.000
432.980
df
Sig.
Tests the null hypothesis that the residual
covariance matrix is proportional to an identity
matrix.
a. Design: Intercept + group
5
.000
Leora Fisher
12
.051
2.155
.026
.026
2.158
.026
.041
Wilks' lambda
.949 2.157
Hotelling's trace
.053
.043 3.514
a. Exact statistic
b. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.
Table C5
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
F
confidence in ability to do math
hours of math homework per month
teacher math support
df1
df2
Sig.
.728
247
.484
1.331
247
.266
.849
247
.429
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + group
Table C6
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Type III Sum of
Source
Dependent Variable
Corrected
confidence in ability to
Model
do math
hours of math homework
Mean
Squares
df
Square
Partial Eta
F
Sig.
Squared
292.824
2.524 .082
.020
49.754b
24.877
2.893 .057
.023
130.197c
65.098
2.388 .094
.019
424419.207
.937
38731.183
.948
187428.467
.965
585.648
585.648
per month
teacher math support
Intercept
confidence in ability to
do math
hours of math homework
per month
teacher math support
group
confidence in ability to
do math
292.824
2.524 .082
.020
Leora Fisher
13
49.754
24.877
2.893 .057
.023
130.197
65.098
2.388 .094
.019
28658.376 247
116.026
2124.273 247
8.600
6732.866 247
27.259
per month
teacher math support
Error
confidence in ability to
do math
hours of math homework
per month
teacher math support
Total
confidence in ability to
458735.401 250
do math
hours of math homework
41445.548 250
per month
teacher math support
Corrected
confidence in ability to
Total
do math
196613.688 250
29244.024 249
2174.026 249
per month
teacher math support
6863.063 249
Table C7
Residual SSCP Matrix
Sum-of-Squares and
confidence in ability to
Cross-Products
do math
confidence in ability
hours of math
teacher math
to do math
support
28658.376
3257.289
959.623
3257.289
2124.273
-85.712
959.623
-85.712
6732.866
confidence in ability to
116.026
13.187
3.885
13.187
8.600
-.347
3.885
-.347
27.259
hours of math
homework per month
Covariance
do math
hours of math
homework per month
teacher math support
Leora Fisher
14
confidence in ability to
1.000
.417
.069
.417
1.000
-.023
.069
-.023
1.000
do math
hours of math
homework per month
teacher math support
Based on Type III Sum of Squares
Table C8
Contrast Results (K Matrix)
Dependent Variable
Contrast Estimate
Later
Hypothesized Value
confidence in ability
hours of math
teacher math
to do math
support
3.137
.932
-.930
3.137
.932
-.930
Std. Error
1.430
.389
.693
.029
.017
.181
.321
.165
-2.295
5.952
1.699
.435
-.574
.178
1.348
-.574
.178
1.348
Std. Error
1.703
.464
.826
.737
.701
.104
-3.928
-.735
-.278
2.781
1.092
2.974
Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
for Difference
Bound
Upper
Bound
Level 2 vs.
Contrast Estimate
Level 3
Hypothesized Value
Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
for Difference
Bound
Upper
Bound
Leora Fisher
15
Dependent Variable
(I) grouping
(J) grouping
variable
variable
Mean
Std.
Difference (I-J)
Error
Sig.
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
2.00
3.4234
1.61482 .088
-.3842
7.2311
do math
3.00
2.8498
1.71171 .221
-1.1863
6.8859
1.00
-3.4234
1.61482 .088
-7.2311
.3842
3.00
-.5736
1.70313 .939
-4.5895
3.4423
1.00
-2.8498
1.71171 .221
-6.8859
1.1863
2.00
.5736
1.70313 .939
-3.4423
4.5895
2.00
.8428
.43965 .136
-.1939
1.8794
3.00
1.0211
.46602 .075
-.0777
2.1200
1.00
-.8428
.43965 .136
-1.8794
.1939
3.00
.1784
.46369 .922
-.9150
1.2717
1.00
-1.0211
.46602 .075
-2.1200
.0777
2.00
-.1784
.46369 .922
-1.2717
.9150
2.00
-1.6036
.78271 .103
-3.4492
.2420
3.00
-.2560
.82967 .949
-2.2123
1.7003
1.00
1.6036
.78271 .103
-.2420
3.4492
3.00
1.3476
.82551 .234
-.5989
3.2941
1.00
.2560
.82967 .949
-1.7003
2.2123
2.00
-1.3476
.82551 .234
-3.2941
.5989
2.00
3.00
hours of math
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
Leora Fisher
Graph C2
Graph C3
16
Leora Fisher
17
Leora Fisher
18
2.00
3.00
Total
Mean
Std. Deviation
Unweighted
Weighted
43.5015
11.00970
88
88.000
13.1309
3.48480
88
88.000
26.8990
5.22980
88
88.000
40.0781
10.05532
90
90.000
12.2881
2.47349
90
90.000
28.5026
4.86458
90
90.000
40.6517
11.32992
72
72.000
12.1097
2.71471
72
72.000
27.1550
5.62593
72
72.000
41.4483
10.83725
250
250.000
12.5334
2.95483
250
250.000
27.5500
5.25000
250
250.000
Table D2
Tests of Equality of Group Means
Wilks' Lambda
df1
df2
Sig.
.980
2.524
247
.082
.977
2.893
247
.057
.981
2.388
247
.094
Table D3
Log Determinants
grouping variable
Rank
Log Determinant
1.00
10.381
2.00
9.389
3.00
10.083
Pooled within-groups
10.011
The ranks and natural logarithms of determinants printed are those of the
group covariance matrices.
Leora Fisher
19
18.142
Approx.
1.485
df1
12
df2
269475.410
Sig.
.121
Table D5
Summary of Canonical Discriminant Functions
Eigenvalues
Function
Eigenvalue
% of Variance
Cumulative %
Canonical Correlation
.043a
80.8
80.8
.203
19.2
100.0
.101
.010
Table D6
Wilks' Lambda
Test of Function(s)
Wilks' Lambda
Chi-square
df
Sig.
1 through 2
.949
12.823
.046
.990
2.500
.287
Table D7
Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients
Function
1
.551
-.133
.412
.772
-.611
.714
Leora Fisher
20
2
.681*
.239
.655
.700*
-.582
.688*
Table D9
Functions at Group Centroids
Function
grouping variable
1.00
.265
.043
2.00
-.216
.083
3.00
-.054
-.156
Leora Fisher
21
Leora Fisher
22