Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Arias MR Assignment 1
Research Questions
There were two research questions in this study, developed from the literature review:
RQ1: What impact do gender, self-concept, and value of education (all measured
at time1) have on student self-reported effort (at time 2) when controlling for self-
effort (time 2)
self-reported effort?
personal characteristics
Methods
Participants
representing the largest grouping at 38% of participants. Students in their first year of Commented [MGP1]: Once it is a continuous variable
(and within realms of normality) report means and SD
high school represented 36% of the sample, with 33.6% sophomores, 18.7% juniors and
8.7% seniors. There was a fairly even split between males (43.3%) and females (54.4%).
Caucasians represented 73.1% of the sample with 7.1% reporting ethnicity as other,
6.4% Hispanic, 4.7% African American, 4.2% Asian American, and 1.6% Native
American.
M. Arias MR Assignment 2
Procedure
education and student perception of teacher interest, caring and competency. Self-concept
was scored on a scale from 1-4; effort, value of education, teacher interest, caring and
competency were scored from 0-4. Gender was dummy coded with males=1 and
female=0.
Before proceeding with the data analysis, all variables were screened for possible
code and statistical assumption violations and outliers, with IBM SPSS 24. Frequencies
and box-plots were used to check for outliers on all applicable variables. Three outliers
identified for Self-Concept were deleted as invalid values. Outliers for teacher interest
and teacher competency were valid and so were retained for analysis (See Figure 1 for
Computing the Mahalanobis distance for each case on the continuous variables Commented [MGP3]: Write the statistics generated for
this test
screened for multivariate outliers, six cases were identified as potential outliers but all
were retained in the analysis. A scatter plot was created from the standardized residuals Commented [MGP4]: Assumptions need to be met. Do
you believe that these cases will jeopardize your conclusion
if removed?
M. Arias MR Assignment 3
and the standardized predicted variables. The Loess line follows the general flow of the
zero line, confirming linearity and the scatter plot confirms homoscedasticity (Figure 2). Commented [MGP5]: There are three points I can easily
identify as possible outliers in the plot youve presented. I
Figure 2. Scatter Plot know you see them as well
Histograms were used to confirm normality for all variables (see Figure 3 for example
histogram). Self-concept was normally distributed with skewness of -.566 (SE=.117) and
kurtosis of .413 (SE=.234). Value of education was normally distributed with skewness
of -.282 (SE=.117) and kurtosis of -.564 (SE=.234). Effort was normally distributed with
skewness of -.831 (SE=.117) and kurtosis of .179 (SE=.234). Teacher interest, caring and
competency were all normally distributed with skewness of -.910, -.467, -.772 (SE=.117)
and kurtosis of .799, -.473, .269 (SE=.234) respectively. Commented [MGP6]: Thank you for not including gender
here
M. Arias MR Assignment 4
While multivariate normality is not directly tested, univariate normality, linearity and Commented [MGP7]: Mahalanobis distance can be used
Two variables, teacher interest and teacher competency, are highly correlated
(r=.812) and could indicate a problem with multicollinearity. The correlations of the Commented [MGP8]: I understand why you would say
this. However, in my experience .85-.90 are more likely to
be problematic
variables are shown in Table 1.
Results
A three stage hierarchical linear regression analysis was used to predict the level
of the level of student self-reported effort (time 2). In the first block, effort (time 1) was
and value of education) were simultaneously entered; in the third block teacher interest,
caring and competency were simultaneously entered. The correlations of the variables are
shown in Table 1. As can be seen, student self-report effort (2s) correlated most strongly
The results of the hierarchical regression are shown in Table 2. Effort (time 1)
was a significant covariate, F(1, 424) = 165.973, p<.001. When three student
M. Arias MR Assignment 6
characteristic variables were added on the second block, the prediction model was
statistically significant, F(4, 421) = 44.307, p=.242, R2 = .296, adjusted R2 = .290. The Commented [MGP9]: Significant?
final model, which included teacher interest, caring and competency, was statistically
significant F(7, 418) = 25.992, p<.001, R2 = .303, adjusted R2 = .292, however, the
change contributed by this model was not significant, p=.312, determining that these
Prior effort is the most effective predictor of later effort. All other variables held constant,
mens effort will be less than womens (b= -0.163). Commented [MGP10]: The R2 Change statistics are more
helpful in answering your research questions. I would focus
more on those. And always report a few coefficients so the
reader will be able to understand the others