Thursday, November 12, 2009

sample write up for HW3

The prediction of college students’ global self worth from school competence, intellectual ability, social acceptance, physical attractiveness, athletic competence, and job competence was explored using a hierarchical multiple regression. The B, SEB, and β for each predictor at each step of the equation are presented in Table 1. The hypothesis that college students’ global self worth would be significantly predicted by school competence and intellectual ability was supported, R2 = .38, F(2, 368) = 113.07, p < .001. Both school competence and intellectual ability significantly predicted global self worth, with higher levels of school competence and intellectual ability associated with higher global self worth. The addition of social acceptance and physical attractiveness to the model significantly improved prediction of global self worth, ΔR2 = .27, F(2, 366) = 143.62, p < .001, with higher levels of social acceptance and physical attractiveness predicting higher global self worth. The addition of athletic competence to the model, however, did not improve prediction of global self worth, ΔR2 = .00, F(1, 365) = 0.08, p = .78. Levels of athletic competence were not significantly related to global self worth. Finally, the addition of job competence did significantly improve the prediction of global self worth, ΔR2 = .03, F(1, 364) = 28.78, p < .001. Greater perceived job competence was associated with higher global self worth. The overall model with all predictors was significant, R2 = .68, F(3, 364) = 128.01, p < .001.

7 comments:

Grace Liu said...

this is probably a mistake coming from the internet, I want to point out that make sure the "B" in "SEB" should be sub-scripted.

Also, just a reminder, when you are reporting inferential statistics of the second step and onwards in a hierarchical multiple regression, you only have to report either R2 or ΔR2. If you are reporting R2 in text, please make sure you report ΔR2 elsewhere, but not together at the same place. Reporting both together in text will count as redundancy according to APA standard. In other words, you need to report ΔR2 no matter what for any steps after the first step.

If you are reporting ΔR2 in a table, you will put the statistics in the same row with "step 2", "step 3", and so forth.

Good luck on your homework!

Rachael Wittern said...

When reporting p values, do we round them to 2 or 3 decimal places? If p < .001, we say it like that... but what if p = .114. Do we leave 3 decimal places or round it to p = .11?

Nikki Frederick said...

Thank you...this write up gives us a much better example of what to do!

KGL said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KGL said...

Rachael--
In that case you would round only to 2 decimals.
The only time you need to round to three decimals is when you are making it clear that it is not 0 (e.g., p < .001 instead of p < .00).

KGL said...

**adding to previous comment**

I said "only" and that is a scary word for me. I can forsee that there MAY be other reasons to report 3 decimals (e.g., p < .049 is more interesting than p < .05). So maybe a better response would be...is reporting to 2 decimals more efficient without losing information? 2 decimals is the standard, but if you gain info from the 3rd decimal, then it SHOULD be included.

In your question, 2 decimals seems best though.

Rachael Wittern said...

Thanks!