(Download PDF) Practical Statistics For Nursing Using SPSS 1st Edition Knapp Solutions Manual Full Chapter

Practical Statistics for Nursing Using
SPSS 1st Edition Knapp Solutions

Manual
Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankfan.com/product/practical-statistics-for-nursing-using-spss-1st-edition-
knapp-solutions-manual/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Intermediate Statistics Using SPSS 1st Edition Knapp

Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/intermediate-statistics-using-
spss-1st-edition-knapp-solutions-manual/
Introductory Statistics Using SPSS 2nd Edition Knapp

Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/introductory-statistics-using-
spss-2nd-edition-knapp-solutions-manual/
Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics 5th

Edition Field Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/discovering-statistics-using-ibm-
spss-statistics-5th-edition-field-test-bank/
Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics 4th

Edition Field Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/discovering-statistics-using-ibm-
spss-statistics-4th-edition-field-test-bank/
Microwave Circuit Design A Practical Approach Using ADS
1st Edition Yeom Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/microwave-circuit-design-a-
practical-approach-using-ads-1st-edition-yeom-solutions-manual/
Statistics For Managers Using Microsoft Excel 7th

Edition Levine Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/statistics-for-managers-using-
microsoft-excel-7th-edition-levine-solutions-manual/
Statistics for Managers Using Microsoft Excel 8th

microsoft-excel-8th-edition-levine-solutions-manual/
Interactive Statistics Informed Decisions Using Data

1st Edition Sullivan Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/interactive-statistics-informed-
decisions-using-data-1st-edition-sullivan-solutions-manual/
Statistics for Managers Using Microsoft Exce Global 8th

microsoft-exce-global-8th-edition-levine-solutions-manual/
1
Chapter 8
MANOVA
Solutions to All Exercises
Contents
Exercise Page Exercise Page

8.1A........................ 2 8.6A ..................... 52
8.1B........................ 7 8.6B ..................... 57
8.2A...................... 12 8.7A ..................... 62
8.2B...................... 17 8.7B ..................... 67
8.3A...................... 22 8.8A ..................... 72
8.3B...................... 27 8.8B ..................... 77
8.4A...................... 32 8.9A ..................... 82
8.4B...................... 37 8.9B ..................... 88
8.5A...................... 42 8.10A ................... 94
8.5B...................... 47 8.10B ..................100
Knapp, Practical Statistics for Nursing Using SPSS. © 2017, SAGE Publications
2
Exercise 8.1A
Data set: Ch 08 – Exercise 01A.sav
(a)
H0: Meditation does not reduce resting pulse rate or stress
H1: Meditation reduces resting pulse rate
H2: Meditation reduces stress
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No meditation 35 33.3 33.3 33.3
Meditates 3 days 35 33.3 33.3 66.7
Meditates 6 days 35 33.3 33.3 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
Pretest Checklist Criterion 1 – Sample size: The Frequency (n) column of this table
shows that there are at least 30 per groups; hence, the sample size criterion is satisfied.
Histogram of Pulse for No Meditation Histogram of Stress for No Meditation

(Group 1) (Group 1)
3
Histogram of Pulse for Meditates 3 Days Histogram of Stress for Meditates 3 Days
(Group 2) (Group 2)
(Group 3) (Group 3)
Pretest Checklist Criterion 2 – Normality: All of the histograms with normal curves
for the variables involved show normal distribution; hence, the criterion of normality is
satisfied.
Correlations
Pulse Stress
Pulse Pearson Correlation 1 .405**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 105 105
Stress Pearson Correlation .405** 1
N 105 105
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Pretest Checklist Criterion 3 – Moderate correlation: The Pearson correlation

between the outcome variables is .405; hence, the criterion of moderate correlation is
satisfied.
4
Box's Test of Equality of

Covariance Matricesa
Box's M 12.841
F 2.079
df1 6
df2 259299.692
Sig. .052
Tests the null hypothesis
that the observed
covariance matrices of the
dependent variables are
equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept +
Group
Pretest Checklist Criterion 4 – Homogeneity of variance-covariance (Box’s M

Test): Box’s M Test produced a Sig. (p) of .052; since this is greater than .001, this
indicates that there is no statistically significant difference among the variance-
covariance of the variables; hence, this criterion is satisfied.
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

F df1 df2 Sig.
Pulse .083 2 102 .920
Stress 1.263 2 102 .287
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Group
Pretest Checklist Criterion 5 – Homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test):

Levene's Test produced Sig. (p) values of .920 and .287; since both are greater than
.05, this indicates that no statistically significant differences have been detected in the
variances among the variables; hence, this criterion is satisfied.
(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.
Intercept Pillai's Trace .995 9437.378a 2.000 101.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .005 9437.378a 2.000 101.000 .000
Hotelling's Trace 186.879 9437.378a 2.000 101.000 .000
Roy's Largest Root 186.879 9437.378a 2.000 101.000 .000
Group Pillai's Trace .146 4.010 4.000 204.000 .004
Wilks' Lambda .854 4.140a 4.000 202.000 .003
Hotelling's Trace .171 4.267 4.000 200.000 .002
Roy's Largest Root .171 8.705b 2.000 102.000 .000
a. Exact statistic
b. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.
c. Design: Intercept + Group
Pillai's Trace produced a Sig. (p) of .004 for Group; since this is less than .05, this
indicates that a statistically significant difference has been detected among the groups;
for specifics as to which group(s) performed different from which, we look to the Multiple
Comparisons table.
5
Multiple Comparisons
Bonferroni
Dependent (I) Group (J) Group Mean 95% Confidence Interval
Variable Difference Std. Lower Upper
(I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
Pulse No meditation Meditates 3 days 5.20* 1.666 .007 1.15 9.25
Meditates 6 days 6.00* 1.666 .001 1.95 10.05
Meditates 3 No meditation -5.20* 1.666 .007 -9.25 -1.15
days Meditates 6 days .80 1.666 1.000 -3.25 4.85
Meditates 6 No meditation -6.00* 1.666 .001 -10.05 -1.95
days Meditates 3 days -.80 1.666 1.000 -4.85 3.25
Stress No meditation Meditates 3 days 5.54 2.565 .099 -.70 11.79
Meditates 6 days 6.43* 2.565 .041 .18 12.67
Meditates 3 No meditation -5.54 2.565 .099 -11.79 .70
Meditates 6 No meditation -6.43* 2.565 .041 -12.67 -.18
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 115.162.
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Group
Dependent Variable Group 95% Confidence Interval
Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Pulse No meditation 97.400 1.178 95.064 99.736
Meditates 3 days 92.200 1.178 89.864 94.536
dimension0
Meditates 6 days 91.400 1.178 89.064 93.736
Stress No meditation 44.686 1.814 41.088 48.284
Meditates 3 days 39.143 1.814 35.545 42.741
Meditates 6 days 38.257 1.814 34.659 41.855
Drawing the means from the Groups table and the p values from the Sig. column on the
Multiple Comparisons table, the following table summarizes the results of this
MANOVA:
Summary Table p
Pulse μ(No meditation) = 97.40 : μ(Meditation 3 days) = 92.20 .007*
Pulse μ(No meditation) = 97.40 : μ(Meditation 6 days) = 91.40 .001*
Pulse μ(Meditation 3 days) = 92.20 : μ(Meditation 6 days) = 91.40 1.000
Stress μ(No meditation) = 44.69 : μ(Meditation 3 days) = 39.14 .099

Stress μ(No meditation) = 44.69 : μ(Meditation 6 days) = 38.26 .041*
Stress μ(Meditation 3 days) = 39.14 : μ(Meditation 6 days) = 39.26 1.000
*Statistically significant (p < .05)
Based on these results, I would reject H0 and accept H1 and H2.
6
(d) NOTE: For clarity, paragraph 2 discusses the first outcome variable – pulse rate,
and paragraph 3 discusses the second outcome variable – the score on the
Acme Life Stress Index (ALSI).
Our research group was interested in discovering supplemental non-pharmacological

methods that could be used in conjunction with patients taking medication for managing
anxiety. We recruited 105 participants, recorded their daily antianxiety medication
dosage levels, and randomly assigned them to one of three groups: (1) No meditation,
(2) Meditation for 30 minutes a day, three days per week, and (3) Meditation for 30
minutes a day for six days per week. After two weeks, we gathered the resting pulse
rate of each participant, and administered the Acme Life Stress Index (0 = No stress…
70 = High stress).
Our study revealed a statistically significantly lower pulse rate (p = .007) among those
who meditated three days a week (μ = 92.2) compared to those in the control group (μ =
97.4). Those who meditated six days a week, demonstrated a further reduction in
resting pulse rate (μ = 91.4), which is statistically lower than the control group (p =
.001).
Those who meditated six days had significantly lower ALSI scores (μ = 38.26)
compared to those in the control group (μ = 44.69) (p = .041). These findings suggest
that meditation may serve as a viable supplemental therapy to help reduce anxiety
among these patients.
7
Exercise 8.1B
Data set: Ch 08 – Exercise 01B.sav
(a)
H0: Meditation does not reduce resting pulse rate or stress
H1: Meditation reduces resting pulse rate
H2: Meditation reduces stress
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid No meditation 33 33.3 33.3 33.3
Meditates 3 days 35 35.4 35.4 68.7
Meditates 6 days 31 31.3 31.3 100.0
Total 99 100.0 100.0
Histogram of Pulse for No Meditation Histogram of Stress for No Meditation

(Group 1) (Group 1)
8
(Group 2) (Group 2)
(Group 3) (Group 3)
satisfied.
Correlations
Pulse Stress
N 99 99
Stress Pearson Correlation .418** 1
N 99 99

satisfied.
9

Box's M 4.043
F .654
df1 6
df2 215203.907
Sig. .687
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
Pulse .241 2 96 .786
Stress 1.322 2 96 .271

(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .005 10261.285a 2.000 95.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .945 1.352a 4.000 190.000 .252
a. Exact statistic
10
Pillai's Trace produced a Sig. (p) of .254 for Group; since this is greater than .05, this
indicates that no statistically significant difference have been detected among the
groups; for specifics as to the means of each group, we look to the Multiple
Comparisons table.
Bonferroni
Pulse No meditation Meditates 3 days 1.61 1.572 .927 -2.22 5.44
Meditates 6 days 2.47 1.621 .391 -1.48 6.42
Meditates 3 No meditation -1.61 1.572 .927 -5.44 2.22
Stress No meditation Meditates 3 days 2.44 1.879 .593 -2.14 7.02
Meditates 6 days 4.31 1.937 .085 -.41 9.03
days Meditates 6 days 1.87 1.910 .987 -2.78 6.53
Meditates 6 No meditation -4.31 1.937 .085 -9.03 .41
days Meditates 3 days -1.87 1.910 .987 -6.53 2.78
Group
Pulse No meditation 95.152 1.128 92.912 97.391
Meditates 3 days 93.543 1.095 91.368 95.717
Meditates 6 days 92.677 1.164 90.367 94.988
Stress No meditation 41.667 1.348 38.990 44.343
Meditates 3 days 39.229 1.309 36.630 41.827
Meditates 6 days 37.355 1.391 34.594 40.116
MANOVA:
Summary Table p
Pulse μ(No meditation) = 95.15 : μ(Meditation 3 days) = 93.54 .927
Pulse μ(No meditation) = 95.15 : μ(Meditation 6 days) = 92.68 .391
Pulse μ(Meditation 3 days) = 93.54 : μ(Meditation 6 days) = 92.68 1.000

Stress μ(Meditation 3 days) = 39.23 : μ(Meditation 6 days) = 37.35 .987
Based on these results, I would accept H0 and reject H1 and H2.
11
(d) NOTE: For clarity, paragraph 2 discusses the first outcome variable – pulse rate,
and paragraph 3 discusses the second outcome variable – the score on the
Acme Life Stress Index (ALSI).
Our research group was interested in discovering supplemental non-pharmacological

methods that could be used in conjunction with patients taking medication for managing
anxiety. We recruited 99 participants, recorded their daily antianxiety medication
dosage levels, and randomly assigned them to one of three groups: (1) No meditation,
(2) Meditation for 30 minutes a day, three days per week, and (3) Meditation for 30
minutes a day for six days per week. After two weeks, we gathered the resting pulse
rate of each participant, and administered the Acme Life Stress Index (0 = No stress…
70 = High stress).
Our study revealed that increased levels of meditation lowered resting pulse rate (no
meditation  = 95.15, meditating 3 days per week  = 93.54, meditating 6 days per
week  = 92.68), but these reductions are considered to be statistically insignificant (p >
.39).
The ALSI scores followed a similar pattern (no meditation  = 41.67, meditating 3 days
per week  = 39.23, meditating 6 days per week  = 37.35); however, these reductions
are also statistically insignificant (p > .085). Further research is needed to determine if it
is possible to enhance these results.
12
Exercise 8.2A
(a)
H0: Preceptor-to-nurse ratios have no effect on patient’s satisfaction with their nurses or
charting errors.
H1: Lower preceptor-to-nurse ratio enhances patient’s satisfaction with their nurses.
H2: Lower preceptor-to-nurse ratio reduces charting errors.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid 1:1 33 33.3 33.3 33.3
2:1 36 36.4 36.4 69.7
5:1 30 30.3 30.3 100.0
Total 99 100.0 100.0
Histogram of ANSS for 1:1 Preceptor Histogram of Chart_errors for 1:1

(Group 1) Preceptor (Group 1)
13

Histogram of ANSS for 5:1 Preceptor Histogram of C Chart_errors for 5:1

(Group 3) (Group 3)
satisfied.
Correlations
ANSS Chart_errors
ANSS Pearson Correlation 1 -.519**
N 99 99
Chart_errors Pearson Correlation -.519** 1
N 99 99

between the outcome variables is -.519; hence, the criterion of moderate correlation is
satisfied.
14

Box's M 3.455
F .558
df1 6
df2 199175.337
Sig. .764
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2Sig.
ANSS .285 2 96 .753
Chart_errors .534 2 96 .588
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent
variable is equal across groups.

(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .001 33699.082a 2.000 95.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .849 4.056a 4.000 190.000 .004
a. Exact statistic
Comparisons table.
15
Bonferroni
Variable Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
ANSS 1:1 3
2:1 1.03 .903 .771 -1.17 3.23
5:1 2.60* .946 .022 .29 4.90
2:1 di
1:1 -1.03 .903 .771 -3.23 1.17
5:1 1.57 .927 .282 -.69 3.82
5:1 1:1 -2.60* .946 .022 -4.90 -.29
dimension1
2:1 -1.57 .927 .282 -3.82 .69
Chart_errors 1:1 2:1 -.28 .280 .947 -.97 .40
5:1 -1.13* .294 .001 -1.84 -.41
d
2:1 1:1 .28 .280 .947 -.40 .97
5:1 -.84* .288 .012 -1.55 -.14
5:1 1:1 1.13* .294 .001 .41 1.84
2:1 .84* .288 .012 .14 1.55
Group
ANSS 1:1 84.364 .653 83.068 85.659
2:1 83.333 .625 82.093 84.573
5:1 81.767 .684 80.408 83.125
Chart_errors 1:1 1.939 .203 1.537 2.341
2:1 2.222 .194 1.837 2.607
5:1 3.067 .212 2.645 3.488
MANOVA:
Summary Table p
ANSS μ(1 : 1) = 84.36 : μ(2 : 1) = 83.33 .771
ANSS μ(1 : 1) = 84.36 : μ(5 : 1) = 81.77 .022*
ANSS μ(2 : 1) = 83.33 : μ(5 : 1) = 81.77 .282
Charting errors μ(1 : 1) = 1.94 : μ(2 : 1) = 2.22 .947

Charting errors μ(1 : 1) = 1.94 : μ(5 : 1) = 3.07 .001*
16
(d)
Our goal was to discover the optimal nurse-to-preceptor ratio as gauged by the Acme
Nursing Satisfaction Survey, which renders a score from 0 to 100; we also gathered
data on charting errors (and omissions) for each nurse. We randomly assigned a total
of 99 nurses to one of three groups; one group received 1:1 preceptorship; another
group ratio had 2:1, and the third group had 5:1.
Overall, lower nurse-to-preceptor ratios were found to be associated with higher mean
ANSS scores, with scores ranging from 81.77 for the 5:1 group, to 83.33 for those in the
1:1 group. This finding was only statistically significant when comparing the 1:1 group
to the 5:1 group (p = .022).
We also detected significantly fewer total charting errors among those who had 1:1 (μ =
1.94) and 2:1 (μ = 2.22), compared to those who had 5:1 (μ = 3.01) (p < .05). These
findings favor lower nurse : preceptor ratios.
17
Exercise 8.2B
(a)
H0: Preceptor-to-nurse ratios have no effect on patient’s satisfaction with their nurses or
charting errors.
H1: Lower preceptor-to-nurse ratio enhances patient’s satisfaction with their nurses.
H2: Lower preceptor-to-nurse ratio reduces charting errors.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid 1:1 33 34.7 34.7 34.7
2:1 32 33.7 33.7 68.4
5:1 30 31.6 31.6 100.0
Total 95 100.0 100.0

18

Histogram of ANSS for 5:1 Preceptor Histogram of C Chart_errors for 5:1

(Group 3) (Group 3)
satisfied.
Correlations
ANSS Chart_errors
ANSS Pearson Correlation 1 -.526**
N 95 95
Chart_errors Pearson Correlation -.526** 1
N 95 95

satisfied.
19

Box's M 4.659
F .752
df1 6
df2 202057.831
Sig. .608
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
ANSS .450 2 92 .639
Chart_errors .909 2 92 .406

(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .003 15324.486a 2.000 91.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .658 10.612a 4.000 182.000 .000
a. Exact statistic
Comparisons table.
20
Bonferroni
Variable Difference
ANSS 1:1 2:1 3.46* 1.091 .006 .80 6.12
5:1 6.20* 1.110 .000 3.49 8.91
2
2:1 1:1 -3.46* 1.091 .006 -6.12 -.80
5:1 2.74* 1.118 .048 .02 5.47
5:1 1:1 -6.20* 1.110 .000 -8.91 -3.49
1
2:1 -2.74* 1.118 .048 -5.47 -.02
Chart_errors 1:1 di
2:1 -1.28* .357 .002 -2.15 -.41
5:1 -2.07* .363 .000 -2.96 -1.19
2:1 1:1 1.28* .357 .002 .41 2.15
5:1 -.79 .366 .100 -1.68 .10
5:1 1:1 2.07* .363 .000 1.19 2.96
2:1 .79 .366 .100 -.10 1.68
Group
ANSS 1:1 73.333 .766 71.812 74.854
2:1 69.875 .778 68.331 71.419
0
5:1 67.133 .803 65.538 68.728
Chart_errors 1:1 2.061 .251 1.563 2.558
2:1 3.344 .254 2.838 3.849
5:1 4.133 .263 3.611 4.655
MANOVA:
Summary Table p
ANSS μ(1 : 1) = 73.33 : μ(2 : 1) = 69.87 .006*
ANSS μ(1 : 1) = 73.33 : μ(5 : 1) = 67.13 .000*
ANSS μ(2 : 1) = 69.87 : μ(5 : 1) = 67.13 .048*

Charting errors μ(2 : 1) = 3.34 : μ(5 : 1) = 4.13 .100
21
(d)
Our goal was to discover the optimal nurse-to-preceptor ratio as gauged by the Acme
Nursing Satisfaction Survey, which renders a score from 0 to 100; we also gathered
data on charting errors (and omissions) for each nurse. We randomly assigned a total
of 95 nurses to one of three groups; one group received 1:1 preceptorship; another
group ratio had 2:1, and the third group had 5:1.
Overall, lower nurse-to-preceptor rations were found to be associated with higher mean
ANSS scores, with scores ranging from 67.13 for the 5:1 group, to 73.33 for those in the
1:1 group (p < .05).
We also detected significantly fewer total charting errors among those who had 1:1 (μ =
2.06) compared to those who had 2:1 (μ = 3.34) (p = .002), and those who had 5:1 (μ =
4.13) (p < .001). These findings favor lower nurse : preceptor ratios.
22
Exercise 8.3A
(a)
H0: Tending to a plant does not enhance the mood or socialization of nursing home
residents.
H1: Tending to a plant enhances the mood of nursing home residents.
H2: Tending to a plant enhances socialization of nursing home residents.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid No plant 60 33.3 33.3 33.3
Bamboo 60 33.3 33.3 66.7
Cactus 60 33.3 33.3 100.0
Total 180 100.0 100.0
Histogram of Depress for No plant Histogram of Social_hours for No Plant

(Group 1) (Group 1)
23
Histogram of Depress for Bamboo Histogram of Social_hours for Bamboo

(Group 2) (Group 2)
Histogram of Depress for Cactus Histogram of Social_hours for Cactus

(Group 3) (Group 3)
Pretest Checklist Criterion 2 – Normality: With the exception of some minor negative
skewing in the histogram of Depress for Bamboo plant, the histograms with normal
curves for the variables involved show normal distribution; hence, the criterion of
normality is satisfied.
Correlations
Depress Social_hours
Depress Pearson Correlation 1 -.137
N 180 180
Social_hours Pearson Correlation -.137 1
N 180 180

between the outcome variables is -.137, which is considered to be a fairly weak
correlation; this should be mentioned in the discussion section.
24

Box's M 5.310
F .871
df1 6
df2 780815.077
Sig. .516
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
Depress 2.037 2 177 .133
Social_hours 1.656 2 177 .194
Pretest Checklist Criterion 5 – Homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test): Levene’s

Test produced Sig. (p) values of .133 and .194; since both are greater than .05, this
indicates that no statistically significant differences have been detected in the variances
among the variables; hence, this criterion is satisfied.
(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .015 5662.358a 2.000 176.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .897 4.927a 4.000 352.000 .001
a. Exact statistic
Comparisons table.
25
Bonferroni
Variable Difference
Depress No plant 3
Bamboo 1.55* .468 .003 .42 2.68
Cactus -.03 .468 1.000 -1.17 1.10
Bamboo d
No plant -1.55* .468 .003 -2.68 -.42
*
Cactus -1.58 .468 .003 -2.72 -.45
Cactus No plant .03 .468 1.000 -1.10 1.17
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
Bamboo 1.58* .468 .003 .45 2.72
Social_hours No plant Bamboo -1.075* .4367 .044 -2.130 -.020
o
n
1
Cactus -.158 .4367 1.000 -1.214 .897

Bamboo d
i
No plant 1.075* .4367 .044 .020 2.130
Cactus .917 .4367 .112 -.139 1.972
Cactus d
3
No plant .158 .4367 1.000 -.897 1.214
Bamboo -.917 .4367 .112 -1.972 .139
Group
Depress No plant 19.600 .331 18.946 20.254
Bamboo 18.050 .331 17.396 18.704
dimension0
Cactus 19.633 .331 18.980 20.287
Social_hours No plant 4.717 .309 4.107 5.326
Bamboo 5.792 .309 5.182 6.401
Cactus 4.875 .309 4.266 5.484
MANOVA:
Groups p
Depress μ(No plant) = 19.60 : μ(Bamboo) = 18.05 .003*
Depress μ(No plant) = 19.60 : μ(Cactus) = 19.63 1.000
Depress μ(Bamboo) = 18.05 : μ(Cactus) = 19.63 .003*
Social hours μ(No plant) = 4.72 : μ(Bamboo) = 5.79 .044*

Social hours μ(No plant) = 4.72: μ(Cactus) = 4.87 1.000
Social hours μ(Bamboo) = 5.79 : μ(Cactus) = 4.87 .112
26
(d)
Considering the role that positive caretaking can have on mood, residents of a nursing
home were randomly divided into three groups (60 per group): Group 1 served as the
control group, and received no plant; members of Group 2 were each given a small
bamboo plant with an instruction card detailing appropriate care protocol, and Group 3
received a small cactus plant with care instructions. We also included the daily
antidepressant prescribed for each participant into our statistical model. After 90 days,
the Acme Depression Scale (1 = Low depression... 100 = High depression) was
administered to each of the residents and measured the mean number of hours each
resident as a proxy for socialization.
Those in the bamboo group showed a statistically significantly lower depression level (
= 18.05), outperforming the control group ( = 19.60, p = .003), and the cactus group (
= 19.63, p = .003). We expect that the minimal care required for the cactus made this
an unviable plant for this purpose.
In terms of socialization those in the bamboo group spent significantly more time
socializing as measured by mean hours of room per day ( = 5.79) compared to those
in the control group ( = 4.72, p = .044).
These findings suggest some benefits in providing bamboo plants to nursing home
residents. As a caveat, pretest analysis revealed a -.137 correlation between the two
outcome variables (ADS and socialization hours), which may have compromised the
findings of the MANOVA results.
27
Exercise 8.3B
(a)
H0: Tending to a plant does not enhance the mood or socialization of nursing home
residents.
H1: Tending to a plant enhances the mood of nursing home residents.
H2: Tending to a plant enhances socialization of nursing home residents.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid No plant 58 33.3 33.3 33.3
Bamboo 51 29.3 29.3 62.6
Cactus 65 37.4 37.4 100.0
Total 174 100.0 100.0
Histogram of Depress for No plant Histogram of Social_hours for No Plant

(Group 1) (Group 1)
28
Histogram of Depress for Bamboo Histogram of Social_hours for Bamboo

(Group 2) (Group 2)
Histogram of Depress for Cactus Histogram of Social_hours for Cactus

(Group 3) (Group 3)
satisfied.
Correlations
Depress Social_hours
Depress Pearson Correlation 1 -.508**
N 174 174
Social_hours Pearson Correlation -.508** 1
N 174 174

satisfied.
29

Box's M 5.486
F .899
df1 6
df2 575276.462
Sig. .495
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
Depress 1.108 2 171 .333
Social_hours .200 2 171 .819
Pretest Checklist Criterion 5 – Homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test): Levene's

(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .016 5345.001a 2.000 170.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .869 6.173a 4.000 340.000 .000
a. Exact statistic
Comparisons table.
30
Bonferroni
Variable Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Depress No plant d
i
Bamboo -.68 .773 1.000 -2.55 1.19
Cactus -1.34 .727 .201 -3.10 .42
Bamboo D
No plant .68 .773 1.000 -1.19 2.55
Cactus -.66 .753 1.000 -2.48 1.16
Cactus No plant 1.34 .727 .201 -.42 3.10
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
Bamboo .66 .753 1.000 -1.16 2.48
Social_hours No plant Bamboo -.985* .3466 .015 -1.823 -.147
o
n
1
Cactus -.796* .3262 .047 -1.585 -.008

Bamboo No plant .985* .3466 .015 .147 1.823
Cactus .189 .3378 1.000 -.628 1.006
Cactus No plant .796* .3262 .047 .008 1.585
Bamboo -.189 .3378 1.000 -1.006 .628
Group
Depress No plant 15.690 .529 14.646 16.733
Bamboo 16.373 .564 15.260 17.485
Cactus 17.031 .499 16.045 18.017
Social_hours No plant 5.534 .237 5.066 6.003
Bamboo 6.520 .253 6.021 7.019
Cactus 6.331 .224 5.889 6.773
MANOVA:
Groups p
Depress μ(No plant) = 15.69 : μ(Bamboo) = 16.73 1.000
Depress μ(No plant) = 15.69 : μ(Cactus) = 17.03 .201
Depress μ(Bamboo) = 16.73 : μ(Cactus) = 17.03 1.000
Social hours μ(No plant) = 5.53 : μ(Bamboo) = 6.52 .015*

Social hours μ(No plant) = 5.53 : μ(Cactus) = 6.33 .047*
Social hours μ(Bamboo) = 6.52 : μ(Cactus) = 6.33 1.000
31
(d)
Considering the role that positive caretaking can have on mood, 174 residents of a
nursing home were randomly divided into three groups: Group 1 served as the control
group, and received no plant; members of Group 2 were each given a small bamboo
plant with an instruction card detailing appropriate care protocol, and Group 3 received
a small cactus plant with care instructions. We also included the daily antidepressant
prescribed for each participant into our statistical model. After 90 days, the Acme
Depression Scale (1 = Low depression... 100 = High depression) was administered to
each of the residents and measured the mean number of hours each resident as a
proxy for socialization.
We detected no significant difference in mean depression among the three groups:

Control ( = 15.69), bamboo ( = 16.73), and cactus ( = 17.03) p > .200 for all
comparisons.
Mean time socializing (time spent out of the resident’s room per day) was significantly
higher in the bamboo group ( = 6.52) compared to the control group ( = 5.53, p =
.015); similarly, those who were given a cactus socialized significantly more ( = 6.33)
than those in the control group ( = 5.53, p = .047).
These findings suggest some benefits in providing plants to nursing home residents.
32
Exercise 8.4A
(a)
H0: Eating chocolate has no effect on mood or sleep.
H1: Eating chocolate has a positive effect on mood.
H2: Eating chocolate has a positive effect on sleep.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid No chocolate 25 33.3 33.3 33.3
Chocolate (1 per meal) 25 33.3 33.3 66.7
Total 75 100.0 100.0
shows that there are less than 30 per groups; while this is close to satisfying the sample
size criterion, this deficiency will be mentioned in the discussion section.
Histogram of Mood for No chocolate Histogram of Sleep for No chocolate

(Group 1) (Group 1)
33
Histogram of Mood for 1 chocolate per Histogram of Sleep for 1 chocolate per
meal (Group 2) meal (Group 2)
Histogram of Mood for 2 chocolates per Histogram of Sleep for 2 chocolates per
satisfied.
Correlations
Mood Sleep
Mood Pearson Correlation 1 .430**
N 75 75
Sleep Pearson Correlation .430** 1
N 75 75

satisfied.
34

Box's M 5.973
F .955
df1 6
df2 129201.231
Sig. .454
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
Mood .922 2 72 .403
Sleep .032 2 72 .968

(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .003 10881.880a 2.000 71.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .774 4.848a 4.000 142.000 .001
a. Exact statistic
Comparisons table.
35
Dependent Variable (I) Group (J) Group

Mean
Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.
Mood No chocolate Chocolate (1 per meal) -3.68* 1.242 .012
Chocolate (2 per meal) -1.72 1.242 .511
Chocolate (1 per meal) No chocolate 3.68* 1.242 .012
Chocolate (2 per meal) 1.96 1.242 .357
Chocolate (2 per meal) No chocolate 1.72 1.242 .511
Sleep No chocolate Chocolate (1 per meal) -.240 .2227 .854
Chocolate (2 per meal) .460 .2227 .127
Chocolate (1 per meal) No chocolate .240 .2227 .854
Chocolate (2 per meal) .700* .2227 .007
Chocolate (2 per meal) No chocolate -.460 .2227 .127
Chocolate (1 per meal) -.700* .2227 .007
NOTE: Due to lengthy variable names, the rightmost two columns were deleted
from this table to facilitate readability and page fit.
Group
Mood No chocolate 73.000 .878 71.249 74.751
Chocolate (1 per meal) 76.680 .878 74.929 78.431
Sleep No chocolate 7.380 .157 7.066 7.694
MANOVA:
Groups p
Mood μ(No ch.) = 73.00 : μ(Ch. [1 per meal]) = 76.68 .012*
Mood μ(No ch.) = 73.00 : μ(Ch. [2 per meal]) = 74.72 .511
Mood μ(Ch. [1 per meal]) = 76.68 : μ(Ch. [2 per meal]) = 74.72 .357
Sleep μ(No ch.) = 7.38 : μ(Ch. [1 per meal]) = 7.62 .854

Sleep μ(No ch.) = 7.38 : μ(Ch. [2 per meal]) = 6.92 .127
μ(Ch. [1 per meal]) = 7.62: μ(Ch. [2 per meal]) = 6.92 .007*
NOTE: Ch. = Chocolate
36
(d)
In order to understand the effects that diet has on mood and sleep, we recruited 75
participants and randomly assigned them to three groups: The control group ate their
regular diet, group 2 had one piece of chocolate with every meal (breakfast, lunch, and
dinner), and group 3 had two pieces of chocolate with every meal. After a week, we
administered the Acme Mood Scale, which renders a score from 1 to 100 (100 being the
best mood), and entered the mean hours of nightly sleep for each participant.
Our findings revealed a significantly higher mean AMS score among those who ate one
piece of chocolate with their meals (μ = 76.68) compared to those who ate their regular
meals (μ = 73.00) (p = .012).
We also detected that those who had one piece of chocolate with their meals slept
significantly more (μ = 7.62) compared to those who had two pieces of chocolate (μ =
6.92, p = .007). In terms of enhancing mood and extending sleep, these findings
suggest that one piece of chocolate is optimal. As a caveat, we had 25 participants per
group; these statistics would be considered more robust had we recruited at least an
additional five participants per group.
37
Exercise 8.4B
(a)
H0: Eating chocolate has no effect on mood or sleep.
H1: Eating chocolate has a positive effect on mood.
H2: Eating chocolate has a positive effect on sleep.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid No chocolate 28 35.9 35.9 35.9
Total 78 100.0 100.0
shows that there are less than 30 per groups; since this does not satisfy the sample size
criterion this deficiency will be mentioned in the discussion section.
Histogram of Mood for No chocolate Histogram of Sleep for No chocolate

(Group 1) (Group 1)
38
Histogram of Mood for 1 chocolate per Histogram of Sleep for 1 chocolate per
Histogram of Mood for 2 chocolates per Histogram of Sleep for 2 chocolates per
satisfied.
Correlations
Mood Sleep
N 78 78
Sleep Pearson Correlation .719** 1
N 78 78

satisfied.
39

Box's M 17.021
F 2.726
df1 6
df2 115140.290
Sig. .012
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
Mood 2.917 2 75 .060
Sleep 1.060 2 75 .352

(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .007 5185.433a 2.000 74.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .925 1.477a 4.000 148.000 .212
a. Exact statistic
indicates that no statistically significant differences have been detected among the
groups, as indicated by the Sig. (p) values on the for Multiple Comparisons table.
40
Mean
Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
Mood No chocolate Chocolate (1 per meal) -.35 2.019 1.000
Chocolate (1 per meal) No chocolate .35 2.019 1.000
Chocolate (2 per meal) No chocolate 3.40 1.936 .249
d
Chocolate (1 per meal) 3.05 2.036 .416
Sleep No chocolate Chocolate (1 per meal) .113 .1934 1.000
Chocolate (2 per meal) -.044 .1854 1.000
Chocolate (1 per meal) No chocolate -.113 .1934 1.000
Chocolate (2 per meal) -.157 .1950 1.000
Chocolate (2 per meal) No chocolate .044 .1854 1.000
Chocolate (1 per meal) .157 .1950 1.000
Group
Mood No chocolate 78.821 1.356 76.120 81.523
Chocolate (1 per meal) 79.174 1.496 76.193 82.155
Chocolate (2 per meal) 82.222 1.381 79.471 84.973
Sleep No chocolate 7.179 .130 6.920 7.437
MANOVA:
Groups p
Mood μ(No ch.) = 78.21 : μ(Ch. [1 per meal]) = 79.17 1.000
Mood μ(No ch.) = 78.21 : μ(Ch. [2 per meal]) = 82.22 .249
Mood μ(Ch. [1 per meal]) = 79.17 : μ(Ch. [2 per meal]) = 82.22 .416
Sleep μ(No ch.) = 7.19 : μ(Ch. [1 per meal]) = 7.06 1.000

Sleep μ(No ch.) = 7.19 : μ(Ch. [2 per meal]) = 7.22 1.000
μ(Ch. [1 per meal]) = 7.06 : μ(Ch. [2 per meal]) = 7.22 1.000
NOTE: Ch. = Chocolate
41
(d)
In order to understand the effects that diet has on mood and sleep, we recruited 78
participants and randomly assigned them to three groups: The control group ate their
regular diet, group 2 had one piece of chocolate with every meal (breakfast, lunch, and
dinner), and group 3 had two pieces of chocolate with every meal. After a week, we
administered the Acme Mood Scale, which renders a score from 1 to 100 (100 being the
best mood), and entered the mean hours of nightly sleep for each participant.
Although we detected a slightly higher mood among those who ate two pieces of
chocolate (μ = 82.22) this was insignificant compare to those who ate one pieces (μ =
79.17, p = .416) or no chocolate (μ = 78.21, p = .249).
We also detected no significant difference in sleep hours among those who ate no
chocolate (μ = 7.19), one piece (μ = 7.06), and two pieces (μ = 7.22) (p = 1.000 among
all pairs). As a caveat, we had less than 30 participants per group; these statistics
would be considered more robust had we recruited additional participants.
42
Exercise 8.5A
(a)
H0: Flu shot promotional media has no effect on the number of flu shots administered
or flu symptoms.
H1: Flu shot promotional media increases the number of flu shots administered.
H2: Flu shot promotional media decreases flu symptoms.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid Nothing 40 33.3 33.3 33.3
Flu shot pamphlet 40 33.3 33.3 66.7
Flu shot video 40 33.3 33.3 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
Histogram of Shots for Nothing (Group 1) Histogram of Flu_symptoms for Nothing

(Group 1)
43
Histogram of Shots for Flu shot pamphlet Histogram of Flu_symptoms for Flu shot
(Group 2) pamphlet (Group 2)
Histogram of Shots for Flu shot video Histogram of Flu_symptoms for Flu shot
(Group 3) video (Group 3)
satisfied.
Correlations
Shots Flu_symptoms
Shots Pearson Correlation 1 -.713**
N 120 120
Flu_symptoms Pearson Correlation -.713** 1
N 120 120

satisfied.
44

Box's M 10.267
F 1.669
df1 6
df2 341172.000
Sig. .124
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2
Sig.
Shots .855 2 117 .428
Flu_symptoms .590 2 117 .556

(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .015 3773.006a 2.000 116.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .879 3.872a 4.000 232.000 .005
a. Exact statistic
Comparisons table.
45
Bonferroni
Shots NothingFlu shot pamphlet -.02 .931 1.000 -2.29 2.24
Flu shot video -3.07* .931 .004 -5.34 -.81
Flu shot Nothing .02 .931 1.000 -2.24 2.29
pamphlet Flu shot video -3.05* .931 .004 -5.31 -.79
Flu shot video Nothing 3.07* .931 .004 .81 5.34
Flu shot pamphlet 3.05* .931 .004 .79 5.31
Flu_symptoms Nothing Flu shot pamphlet -.10 .331 1.000 -.90 .70
Flu shot video .95* .331 .015 .15 1.75
Flu shot Nothing .10 .331 1.000 -.70 .90
pamphlet Flu shot video 1.05* .331 .006 .25 1.85
Flu shot video Nothing -.95* .331 .015 -1.75 -.15
Flu shot pamphlet -1.05* .331 .006 -1.85 -.25
Group
Shots Nothing 16.525 .659 15.221 17.829
Flu shot pamphlet 16.550 .659 15.246 17.854
dimension0
Flu shot video 19.600 .659 18.296 20.904
Flu_symptoms Nothing 3.350 .234 2.886 3.814
Flu shot video 2.400 .234 1.936 2.864
MANOVA:
Groups p
Shots μ(Nothing) = 16.52 : μ(Flu shot pamphlet) = 16.55 1.000
Shots μ(Nothing) = 16.52 : μ(Flu shot video) = 19.60 .004*
Shots μ(Flu shot video) = 19.60 : μ(Flu shot pamphlet) = 16.55 .004*
Flu symptoms μ(Nothing) = 3.35 : μ(Flu shot pamphlet) = 3.45 1.000

Flu symptoms μ(Nothing) = 3.35 : μ(Flu shot video) = 2.40 .015*
Flu symptoms μ(Flu shot video) = 2.40 : μ(Flu shot pamphlet) = 3.45 .006*
46
(d)
In an effort to promote flu shot receptivity, patients at a walk-in clinic were randomly
assigned to one of three groups: Group 1 (the control group) received no flu shot
promotional media, Group 2 was given a flu shot information pamphlet detailing the
rationale for the flu shot and flu prevention techniques, emphasizing hand hygiene.
Group 3 was shown a brief flu shot information video (containing the same information
as the pamphlet). We also contacted patients 90 days after their appointment to
administer the Acme Flu Symptom Survey (0 = No flu symptoms... 7 = Strong flu
symptoms).
After 40 days, daily mean flu shot counts were found to be highest among those who
watched the flu shot video (μ = 19.60), significantly outperforming the group that
received the pamphlet (μ = 16.55, p = .004) and the group that received no promotional
material (μ = 16.52, p = .004).
Similarly, upon 90 day follow-up, patients who viewed the flu information video reported
significantly lower scores on the AFSS (μ = 2.40) compared to those who received the
same information in pamphlet form (μ = 3.45, p = .006) and those who received no flu
related materials (μ = 3.35, p = .015).
Based on these findings, we are considering presenting the flu shot video to all of our
patients during flu season.
47
Exercise 8.5B
(a)
H0: Flu shot promotional media has no effect on the number of flu shots administered
or flu symptoms.
H1: Flu shot promotional media increases the number of flu shots administered.
H2: Flu shot promotional media decreases flu symptoms.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid Nothing 60 33.3 33.3 33.3
Flu shot pamphlet 60 33.3 33.3 66.7
Flu shot video 60 33.3 33.3 100.0
Total 180 100.0 100.0
Histogram of Shots for Nothing (Group 1) Histogram of Flu_symptoms for Nothing

(Group 1)
48
Histogram of Shots for Flu shot pamphlet Histogram of Flu_symptoms for Flu shot
(Group 2) pamphlet (Group 2)
Histogram of Shots for Flu shot video Histogram of Flu_symptoms for Flu shot
(Group 3) video (Group 3)
satisfied.
Correlations
Shots Flu_symptoms
Shots Pearson Correlation 1 -.830**
N 180 180
Flu_symptoms Pearson Correlation -.830** 1
N 180 180

satisfied.
49

Box's M 5.452
F .894
df1 6
df2 780815.077
Sig. .498
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
Shots 1.177 2 177 .310
Flu_symptoms 1.991 2 177 .140

(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .012 7299.727a 2.000 176.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .934 3.072a 4.000 352.000 .017
a. Exact statistic
Comparisons table.
50
Bonferroni
Shots NothingFlu shot pamphlet -4.27* 1.679 .036 -8.33 -.21
Flu shot video -5.53* 1.679 .004 -9.59 -1.47
Flu shot Nothing 4.27* 1.679 .036 .21 8.33
pamphlet Flu shot video -1.27 1.679 1.000 -5.33 2.79
Flu shot video Nothing 5.53* 1.679 .004 1.47 9.59
Flu shot pamphlet 1.27 1.679 1.000 -2.79 5.33
Flu_symptoms Nothing Flu shot pamphlet .73* .303 .049 .00 1.46
Flu shot video .95* .303 .006 .22 1.68
Flu shot Nothing -.73* .303 .049 -1.46 .00
pamphlet Flu shot video .22 .303 1.000 -.51 .95
Flu shot video Nothing -.95* .303 .006 -1.68 -.22
Flu shot pamphlet -.22 .303 1.000 -.95 .51
Group
Shots Nothing 29.700 1.188 27.356 32.044
Flu shot pamphlet 33.967 1.188 31.623 36.310
dimension0
Flu shot video 35.233 1.188 32.890 37.577
Flu_symptoms Nothing 3.583 .214 3.161 4.006
Flu shot video 2.633 .214 2.211 3.056
MANOVA:
Groups p
Shots μ(Nothing) = 29.70 : μ(Flu shot pamphlet) = 33.97 .036*
Shots μ(Nothing) = 29.70 : μ(Flu shot video) = 35.23 .004*
Shots μ(Flu shot video) = 35.23 : μ(Flu shot pamphlet) = 33.97 1.000
Flu symptoms μ(Nothing) = 3.58 : μ(Flu shot pamphlet) = 2.86 .049*

Flu symptoms μ(Nothing) = 3.58 : μ(Flu shot video) = 2.63 .006*
Flu symptoms μ(Flu shot video) = 2.63 : μ(Flu shot pamphlet) = 2.86 1.000
51
(d)
In an effort to promote flu shot receptivity, patients at a walk-in clinic were randomly
assigned to one of three groups: Group 1 (the control group) received no flu shot
promotional media, Group 2 was given a flu shot information pamphlet detailing the
rationale for the flu shot and flu prevention techniques, emphasizing hand hygiene.
Group 3 was shown a brief flu shot information video (containing the same information
as the pamphlet). We also contacted patients 90 days after their appointment to
administer the Acme Flu Symptom Survey (0 = No flu symptoms... 7 = Strong flu
symptoms).
After 60 days, daily mean flu shot counts were found to be highest among those who
watched the flu shot video (μ = 35.23), significantly outperforming the group that
received no promotional material (μ = 29.70, p = .004); the group that received the flu
shot pamphlet also had significantly more flu shots (μ = 33.97) than the control group (μ
= 29.70, p = .036).
Similarly, upon 90 day follow-up, patients who viewed the flu information video reported
significantly lower scores on the AFSS (μ = 2.63) compared to those who received no
flu related materials (μ = 3.58, p = .006). Additionally, those who received the pamphlet
also had significantly fewer flu symptoms (μ = 2.86) than those who received no
materials (μ = 3.58, p = .049).
Based on these findings, we are considering providing flu informational media to all of
our patients during flu season.
52
Exercise 8.6A
(a)
H0: A pleasant video has no effect on patient’s pre-appointment anxiety (pulse and O2
level).
H1: A pleasant video reduces patient’s pre-appointment pulse.
H2: A pleasant video reduces patient’s pre-appointment O2 level.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid Control 35 34.3 34.3 34.3
Classic movie 37 36.3 36.3 70.6
Scenic video 30 29.4 29.4 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
Histogram of Pulse for Control (Group 1) Histogram of O2 for Control (Group 1)
53
Histogram of Pulse for Classic movie Histogram of O2 for Classic movie (Group
(Group 2) 2)
satisfied.
Correlations
Pulse O2
N 102 102
O2 Pearson Correlation .803** 1
N 102 102

satisfied.
54

Box's M 8.621
F 1.394
df1 6
df2 198895.578
Sig. .212
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
Pulse .227 2 99 .797
O2 .072 2 99 .931

(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .001 89703.030a 2.000 98.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .947 1.363a 4.000 196.000 .248
a. Exact statistic
Pillai’s Trace produced a Sig. (p) of .250 for Group; since this is greater than .05, this
indicates that no statistically significant differences have been detected among the
groups, as indicated by the Sig. (p) values on the for Multiple Comparisons table.
55
Bonferroni
Variable Differen Std. Lower Upper
ce (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
Pulse Control Classic movie 4.15 2.116 .157 -1.00 9.31
Scenic video 2.80 2.232 .640 -2.64 8.23
Classic Control -4.15 2.116 .157 -9.31 1.00
movie Scenic video -1.36 2.204 1.000 -6.73 4.01
Scenic video Control -2.80 2.232 .640 -8.23 2.64
Classic movie 1.36 2.204 1.000 -4.01 6.73
O2 Control Classic movie .55 .671 1.000 -1.08 2.19
Scenic video .46 .708 1.000 -1.27 2.18
Classic Control -.55 .671 1.000 -2.19 1.08
movie Scenic video -.10 .699 1.000 -1.80 1.60
Scenic video Control -.46 .708 1.000 -2.18 1.27
Classic movie .10 .699 1.000 -1.60 1.80
Group
Pulse Control 99.829 1.517 96.819 102.838
Classic movie 95.676 1.475 92.749 98.603
dimension0
Scenic video 97.033 1.638 93.783 100.284
O2 Control 94.257 .481 93.303 95.211
Classic movie 93.703 .468 92.775 94.631
Scenic video 93.800 .519 92.769 94.831
MANOVA:
Groups p
Pulse μ(Control) = 99.83 : μ(Classic movie) = 95.68 .157
Pulse μ(Control) = 99.83 : μ(Scenic video) = 97.03 .640
Pulse μ(Classic movie) = 95.68 : μ(Scenic video) = 97.03 1.000
O2 μ(Control) = 94.26 : μ(Classic movie) = 93.70 1.000

O2 μ(Control) = 94.26 : μ(Scenic video) = 93.80 1.000
O2 μ(Classic movie) = 93.70 : μ(Scenic video) = 93.80 1.000
56
(d)
In an effort to help reduce patient pre-appointment anxiety, we conducted a study
involving data gathered from 102 patients on three consecutive days: On day 1, no
video was shown to the patients in the waiting area; on day 2, a classic movie was
shown, and on day 3, a scenic video depicting peaceful nature images was shown.
Waiting room time for each patient was taken into account in our statistical model.
Upon gathering vital signs, the pulse rate and O2 level for each patient was recorded as
a proxy for anxiety.
Patients who watched the classic movie had the lowest pulse rate (μ = 95.68), followed
by the scenic video (μ = 97.03), and finally, the control group (μ = 99.83); however,
none of these differences are considered statistically significant (p > .15).
Additionally, the mean O2 levels among these groups ranged from 93.70 to 94.26; no
statistically significant differences (p = 1.000) were indicated.
These findings suggest that the video intervention was ineffective in reducing pre-
appointment waiting room anxiety.
57
Exercise 8.6B
(a)
H0: A pleasant video has no effect on patient’s pre-appointment anxiety (pulse and O2
level).
H1: A pleasant video reduces patient’s pre-appointment pulse.
H2: A pleasant video reduces patient’s pre-appointment O2 level.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid Control 31 33.3 33.3 33.3
Classic movie 31 33.3 33.3 66.7
Scenic video 31 33.3 33.3 100.0
Total 93 100.0 100.0
Histogram of Pulse for Control (Group 1) Histogram of O2 for Control (Group 1)
58
Histogram of Pulse for Classic movie Histogram of O2 for Classic movie (Group
(Group 2) 2)
Histogram of Pulse for Scenic video Histogram of O2 for Scenic video (Group
(Group 3) 3)
satisfied.
Correlations
Pulse O2
N 93 93
O2 Pearson Correlation .629** 1
N 93 93
59

satisfied.

Box's M 6.110
F .986
df1 6
df2 201876.923
Sig. .433
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
Pulse .484 2 90 .618
O2 .129 2 90 .879

(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Intercept Pillai's Trace 1.000 246426.791a 2.000 89.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .000 246426.791a 2.000 89.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .399 25.911a 4.000 178.000 .000
Hotelling's Trace 1.404 30.879 4.000 176.000 .000
Roy's Largest Root 1.328 59.776b 2.000 90.000 .000
a. Exact statistic
60
Comparisons table.
Bonferroni
Pulse Control Classic movie 6.61* 1.352 .000 3.32 9.91
Scenic video 3.32* 1.352 .048 .02 6.62
Classic Control -6.61* 1.352 .000 -9.91 -3.32
movie Scenic video -3.29 1.352 .051 -6.59 .01
Scenic video Control -3.32* 1.352 .048 -6.62 -.02
Classic movie 3.29 1.352 .051 -.01 6.59
O2 Control Classic movie -.42 .450 1.000 -1.52 .68
Scenic video -1.55* .450 .003 -2.65 -.45
Classic Control .42 .450 1.000 -.68 1.52
movie Scenic video -1.13* .450 .041 -2.23 -.03
Scenic video Control 1.55* .450 .003 .45 2.65
Classic movie 1.13* .450 .041 .03 2.23
Group
Pulse Control 81.839 .956 79.940 83.738
Classic movie 75.226 .956 73.327 77.125
Scenic video 78.516 .956 76.617 80.415
O2 Control 95.387 .318 94.755 96.019
Classic movie 95.806 .318 95.175 96.438
Scenic video 96.935 .318 96.304 97.567
MANOVA:
Groups p
Pulse μ(Control) = 81.84 : μ(Classic movie) = 75.23 .000*
Pulse μ(Control) = 81.84 : μ(Scenic video) = 78.52 .048*
Pulse μ(Classic movie) = 75.23 : μ(Scenic video) = 78.52 .051
O2 μ(Control) = 95.39 : μ(Classic movie) = 95.81 1.000

O2 μ(Control) = 95.39 : μ(Scenic video) = 96.93 .003*
O2 μ(Classic movie) = 95.81 : μ(Scenic video) = 96.93 .041*
61
(d)
In an effort to help reduce patient pre-appointment anxiety, we conducted a study
involving data gathered from the first 31 patients on three consecutive days: On day 1,
no video was shown to the patients in the waiting area; on day 2, a classic movie was
shown, and on day 3, a scenic video depicting peaceful nature images was shown.
Waiting room time for each patient was taken into account in our statistical model.
Upon gathering vital signs, the pulse rate and O2 level for each patient was recorded as
a proxy for anxiety.
Patients who watched the classic movie had a significantly lower pulse rate (μ = 75.23)
compared to those who had no video (μ = 81.84, p = .000). Pulse rate was also
significantly lower for those who watched the scenic video (μ = 78.52) compared with
those did not watch a video (p = .048). Considering that comparing the mean pulse rate
for those who watched the classic movie was 75.23 compared to 78.52 among those
who watched the scenic video, we are considering repeating this study to observe
possible changes in the p value for this comparison (p = .051).
Additionally, the mean O2 level for those who watched the scenic video were
significantly higher (μ = 96.93) than those who watched the classic movie (μ = 95.81, p
= .041) and those who watched no video (μ = 95.39, p = .003).
62
Exercise 8.7A
(a)
H0: Light therapy has no effect on depression or self care.
H1: Light therapy reduces depression.
H2: Light therapy enhances self care.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid No light therapy 80 33.3 33.3 33.3
Light therapy: even days 80 33.3 33.3 66.7
Light therapy: every day 80 33.3 33.3 100.0
Total 240 100.0 100.0
Histogram of Mood for No light therapy Histogram of Self care for No light
(Group 1) therapy (Group 1)
63
Histogram of Mood for Light therapy: Histogram of Self care for Light therapy:
even days (Group 2) even days (Group 2)
every day (Group 3) every day therapy (Group 3)
satisfied.
Correlations
Mood Self_care
N 240 240
Self_care Pearson Correlation .799** 1
N 240 240

satisfied.
64

Box's M 13.624
F 2.243
df1 6
df2 1399904.308
Sig. .036
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
Mood 1.409 2 237 .246
Self_care .372 2 237 .690

(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .011 11076.784a 2.000 236.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .934 4.095a 4.000 472.000 .003
a. Exact statistic
Comparisons table.
65

Mean
Difference
Mood No light therapy Light therapy: even days -2.75 1.180 .062
Light therapy: every day -3.56* 1.180 .008
Light therapy: even No light therapy 2.75 1.180 .062
days Light therapy: every day -.81 1.180 1.000
Light therapy: every day No light therapy 3.56* 1.180 .008
dimension1
Light therapy: even days .81 1.180 1.000
Self_care No light therapy Light therapy: even days -2.90* .851 .002
*
Light therapy: every day -2.84 .851 .003
Light therapy: even No light therapy 2.90* .851 .002
days Light therapy: every day .06 .851 1.000
Light therapy: every day No light therapy 2.84* .851 .003
Light therapy: even days -.06 .851 1.000
Group
Mood No light therapy 59.125 .834 57.482 60.768
Light therapy: even days 61.875 .834 60.232 63.518
dimension0
Light therapy: every day 62.687 .834 61.044 64.331
Self_care No light therapy 16.450 .602 15.264 17.636
MANOVA:
Groups p
Mood μ(No LT) = 59.12 : μ(LT: even days) = 61.88 .062
Mood μ(No LT) = 59.12 : μ(LT: every day) = 62.69 .008*
Mood μ(LT: even days) = 61.88 : μ(LT: every day) = 62.69 1.000
μ(No LT) = 16.45 : μ(LT: even days) = 19.35

Self care .002*
μ(No LT) = 16.45 : μ(LT: every day) = 19.29
Self care .003*
μ(LT: even days) = 19.35 : μ(LT: every day) = 19.29
Self care 1.000
NOTE: LT = Light Therapy.
Based on these results, I would reject H0 and accept H1.
66
(d)
We assessed the effectiveness of light therapy among patients presenting with
depressive symptoms. A total of 240 participants were randomly assigned to one of
three groups: Group 1 received no light therapy, Group 2 received one hour of light
therapy on even numbered days, and Group 3 received one hour of light therapy every
day. After 30 days, we administered the Acme Mood Scale, which produces a score
between 1 and 100 (1 = Extremely bad mood... 100 = Extremely good mood) and the
Acme Self Care Survey (5 = Strong self-neglect… 30 = Strong self-care).
The group that received light therapy every day had a significantly higher AMS score (
= 62.69) than control group ( = 59.12, p = .008)
Those who received light therapy on even days had the highest ASCS (μ = 19.35),
significantly outperforming those in the control group (μ = 16.45, p = .002); further, those
who received light therapy every day also had significantly higher ASCS scores (μ =
19.29) compared to the control group (μ = 16.45, p = .003).
These findings show preliminary evidence supporting the efficacy of light therapy for
such patients.
67
Exercise 8.7B
(a)
H0: Light therapy has no effect on depression or self care.
H1: Light therapy reduces depression.
H2: Light therapy enhances self care.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid No light therapy 48 34.0 34.0 34.0
Light therapy: even days 56 39.7 39.7 73.8
Light therapy: every day 37 26.2 26.2 100.0
Total 141 100.0 100.0
Histogram of Mood for No light therapy Histogram of Self care for No light
(Group 1) therapy (Group 1)
68
even days (Group 2) even days (Group 2)
every day (Group 3) every day therapy (Group 3)
satisfied.
Correlations
Mood Self_care
N 141 141
Self_care Pearson Correlation .815** 1
N 141 141

satisfied.
69

Box's M 18.768
F 3.060
df1 6
df2 253936.651
Sig. .005
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
Mood 1.352 2 138 .262
Self_care 1.140 2 138 .323

(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .005 13798.435a 2.000 137.000 .000
Group Pillai's Trace .009 .307 4.000 276.000 .873
Wilks' Lambda .991 .306a 4.000 274.000 .874
Hotelling's Trace .009 .304 4.000 272.000 .875
Roy's Largest Root .009 .617b 2.000 138.000 .541
a. Exact statistic
indicates there is no statistically significant difference among the groups, as shown in
the Multiple Comparisons table.
70

Mean
Difference
Mood No light therapy Light therapy: even days .58 .785 1.000
Light therapy: every day -.10 .873 1.000
Light therapy: even No light therapy -.58 .785 1.000
days Light therapy: every day -.68 .845 1.000
Light therapy: every day No light therapy .10 .873 1.000
Light therapy: even days .68 .845 1.000
Self_care No light therapy Light therapy: even days .24 .769 1.000
Light therapy: every day -.05 .856 1.000
Light therapy: even No light therapy -.24 .769 1.000
days Light therapy: every day -.28 .829 1.000
Light therapy: every day No light therapy .05 .856 1.000
Light therapy: even days .28 .829 1.000
Group
Mood No light therapy 45.438 .576 44.299 46.576
Self_care No light therapy 16.792 .564 15.675 17.908
MANOVA:
Groups p
Mood μ(No LT) = 45.44 : μ(LT: even days) = 44.86 1.000
Mood μ(No LT) = 45.44 : μ(LT: every day) = 45.54 1.000
Mood μ(LT: even days) = 44.86 : μ(LT: every day) = 45.54 1.000
Self care μ(No LT) = 16.79 : μ(LT: even days) = 16.55 1.000
Self care μ(No LT) = 16.79 : μ(LT: every day) = 16.84 1.000
Self care μ(LT: even days) = 16.55 : μ(LT: every day) = 16.84 1.000
NOTE: LT = Light Therapy.
71
(d)
We assessed the effectiveness of light therapy among patients presenting with
depressive symptoms. A total of 141 participants were randomly assigned to one of
three groups: Group 1 received no light therapy, Group 2 received one hour of light
therapy on even numbered days, and Group 3 received one hour of light therapy every
day. After 30 days, we administered the Acme Mood Scale, which produces a score
between 1 and 100 (1 = Extremely bad mood... 100 = Extremely good mood) and the
Acme Self Care Survey (5 = Strong self-neglect… 30 = Strong self-care).
In assessing the mean mood scores for those who received no light therapy ( = 45.44),
light therapy on even days ( = 44.86), and light therapy every day ( = 45.45), no
statistically significant differences) were detected (p = 1.000).
Similarly, self care was equivalent among those who received no light therapy (μ =
16.79), those who received light therapy on even days (μ = 16.55) and those who
received light therapy daily (μ = 16.84) (p = 1.000 for all comparisons).
These findings fail to show the effectiveness of light therapy for these patients.
72
Exercise 8.8A
(a)
H0: Morning walking has no effect on end-of-the-day energy or sick days.
H1: Morning walking enhances end-of-the-day energy.
H2: Morning walking reduces sick days.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid No walking 132 37.6 37.6 37.6
Walking: 30 min. 124 35.3 35.3 72.9
Walking: 60 min. 95 27.1 27.1 100.0
Total 351 100.0 100.0
Histogram of Energy for No walking Histogram of Energy for No walking

(Group 1) (Group 1)
73
Histogram of Energy for Walking: 30 min. Histogram of Energy for Walking: 30 min.
(Group 2) (Group 2)
(Group 3) (Group 3)
Pretest Checklist Criterion 2 – Normality: Despite some moderate left skewing in the
Energy for No walking group, the histograms with normal curves for the variables
involved show normal distribution; hence, the criterion of normality is satisfied.
Correlations
Energy Sick_days
Energy Pearson Correlation 1 -.766**
N 351 351
Sick_days Pearson Correlation -.766** 1
N 351 351

satisfied.
74

Box's M 19.257
F 3.182
df1 6
df2 1886630.483
Sig. .004
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
Energy 2.019 2 348 .134
Sick_days 1.953 2 348 .143

(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .001 154131.799a 2.000 347.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .965 3.106a 4.000 694.000 .015
a. Exact statistic
Comparisons table.
75
Bonferroni
Energy No walking Walking: 30 min. -1.37* .554 .042 -2.70 -.04
Walking: 60 min. -1.53* .597 .032 -2.97 -.10
Walking: 30 No walking 1.37* .554 .042 .04 2.70
min. Walking: 60 min. -.16 .604 1.000 -1.62 1.29
Walking: 60 No walking 1.53* .597 .032 .10 2.97
min. Walking: 30 min. .16 .604 1.000 -1.29 1.62
d
Sick_day No walking Walking: 30 min. .27* .090 .009 .05 .48

s Walking: 60 min. .29* .097 .009 .06 .52
Walking: 30 No walking -.27* .090 .009 -.48 -.05
min. Walking: 60 min. .02 .098 1.000 -.21 .26
Walking: 60 No walking -.29* .097 .009 -.52 -.06
min. Walking: 30 min. -.02 .098 1.000 -.26 .21
The error term is Mean Square(Error) = .518.
Group
Energy No walking 81.235 .386 80.476 81.994
Walking: 30 min. 82.605 .398 81.822 83.388
dimension0
Walking: 60 min. 82.768 .455 81.874 83.663
Sick_days No walking 1.091 .063 .968 1.214
Walking: 30 min. .823 .065 .695 .950
Walking: 60 min. .800 .074 .655 .945
MANOVA:
Groups p
Energy μ(No walking) = 81.24 : μ(Walking: 30 min.) = 82.60 .042*
Energy μ(Walking: 30 min.) = 82.60 : μ(Walking: 60 min.) = 82.77 1.000
Sick days μ(No walking) = 1.09 : μ(Walking: 30 min.) = .82 .009*

Sick days μ(No walking) = 1.09 : μ(Walking: 60 min.) = .80 .009*
Sick days μ(Walking: 30 min.) = .82 : μ(Walking: 60 min.) = .80 1.00
76
(d)
Considering the role that exercise plays in overall physical and mental health, we
recruited 351 participants and randomly assigned them to one of three groups: Group 1
(n = 132) served as the control group, and did not take part in the morning walking
exercise. Group 2 (n = 124) took a 30 minute walk each morning, and Group 3 (n = 95)
took a 60 minute walk each morning. After 30 days, we administered the Acme End-of-
the-Day Energy Scale (1 = Extremely low energy... 100 = Extremely high energy) to
each participant. Participants also reported the total number of sick days per month for
each participant.
The group that walked 60 minutes had the highest end of the day energy ( = 82.77),
significantly outperforming the control group ( = 81.24, p = .032); the group that walked
30 minutes had the next highest end of the day energy ( = 82.60), again, significantly
outperforming the control group ( = 81.24, p = .042).
Similar findings were revealed with respect to sick days: Those who walked 60 minutes
per day had significantly fewer sick days per month ( = .80) compared to the control
group ( = 1.09, p = .009); as expected, those who walked 30 minutes per day also had
significantly fewer sick days per month ( = .82) compared to the control group ( =
1.09, p = .009).
These findings suggest the efficacy of walking in the morning. Considering that we
detected no significant difference among those who walked 30 minutes and those who
walked for 60 minutes (p = 1.000), it is plausible to recommend the 30 minute walking
regime with respect to these outcomes.
77
Exercise 8.8B
(a)
H0: Morning walking has no effect on end-of-the-day energy or sick days.
H1: Morning walking enhances end-of-the-day energy.
H2: Morning walking reduces sick days.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid No walking 90 33.3 33.3 33.3
Walking: 30 min. 90 33.3 33.3 66.7
Walking: 60 min. 90 33.3 33.3 100.0
Total 270 100.0 100.0
Histogram of Energy for No walking Histogram of Energy for No walking

(Group 1) (Group 1)
78
(Group 2) (Group 2)
(Group 3) (Group 3)
satisfied.
Correlations
Energy Sick_days
Energy Pearson Correlation 1 .929**
N 270 270
Sick_days Pearson Correlation .929** 1
N 270 270

between the outcome variables is .929, suggesting that there may be a problem with
multicollinearity. This will be discussed in the results section.
79

Box's M 9.664
F 1.593
df1 6
df2 1776741.231
Sig. .144
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
Energy .787 2 267 .456
Sick_days 2.022 2 267 .134

(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .009 14875.804a 2.000 266.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .949 3.499a 4.000 532.000 .008
a. Exact statistic
Pillai’s Trace produced a Sig. (p) of .008 for Group; since this is less than .05, this
Comparisons table.
80
Bonferroni
Energy No walking Walking: 30 min. -1.21 1.557 1.000 -4.96 2.54
Walking: 60 min. -4.11* 1.557 .026 -7.86 -.36
Walking: 30 No walking 1.21 1.557 1.000 -2.54 4.96
min. Walking: 60 min. -2.90 1.557 .191 -6.65 .85
Walking: 60 No walking 4.11* 1.557 .026 .36 7.86
min. Walking: 30 min. 2.90 1.557 .191 -.85 6.65
d
Sick_day No walking Walking: 30 min. -.04 .164 1.000 -.44 .35

s Walking: 60 min. -.24 .164 .412 -.64 .15
Walking: 30 No walking .04 .164 1.000 -.35 .44
min. Walking: 60 min. -.20 .164 .671 -.60 .20
Walking: 60 No walking .24 .164 .412 -.15 .64
min. Walking: 30 min. .20 .164 .671 -.20 .60
Group
Energy No walking 54.222 1.101 52.054 56.390
Walking: 30 min. 55.433 1.101 53.265 57.601
Walking: 60 min. 58.333 1.101 56.165 60.501
Sick_days No walking 1.722 .116 1.494 1.951
Walking: 30 min. 1.767 .116 1.538 1.995
Walking: 60 min. 1.967 .116 1.738 2.195
MANOVA:
Groups p
Energy μ(No walking) = 54.22 : μ(Walking: 30 min.) = 55.43 1.000
Energy μ(Walking: 30 min.) = 55.43 : μ(Walking: 60 min.) = 58.33 .191
Sick days μ(No walking) = 1.72 : μ(Walking: 30 min.) = 1.77 1.000

Sick days μ(No walking) = 1.72 : μ(Walking: 60 min.) = 1.97 .412
Sick days μ(Walking: 30 min.) = 1.77 : μ(Walking: 60 min.) = 1.97 .671
Based on these results, I would reject H0 and H2 and accept H1.
81
(d)
Considering the role that exercise plays in overall physical and mental health, we
recruited 270 participants and randomly assigned them to one of three groups (n = 90 in
each group): Group 1 served as the control group, and did not take part in the morning
walking exercise. Group 2 took a 30 minute walk each morning, and Group 3 took a 60
minute walk each morning. After 30 days, we administered the Acme End-of-the-Day
Energy Scale (1 = Extremely low energy... 100 = Extremely high energy) to each
participant. Participants also reported the total number of sick days per month for each
participant.
Those who walked 60 minutes each morning reported the highest level of energy ( =
58.33), which was significantly higher than the no-walking group ( = 54.22, p = .026)
but not significantly higher than those who walked 30 minutes ( = 55.43, p = .191).
All three of the groups performed equivalently in terms of sick days per month: no
walking had a mean of 1.72 sick days, 1.77 for those who walked 30 minutes per day,
and 1.97 among those who walked 60 minutes (p > .40). As a caveat, we detected a
higher than expected correlation between the overall scores for end of the day energy
and sick days per month (r = .929), which may have compromised the reliability of the
MANOVA findings.
82
Exercise 8.9A
(a)
H0: Smoking cessation efforts has no effect on smoking or weight.
H1: Smoking cessation efforts has an effect on smoking.
H2: Smoking cessation efforts has an effect on weight.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid 1 meeting in-person 35 25.0 25.0 25.0
1 meeting videoconference 35 25.0 25.0 50.0
2 meetings in-person 35 25.0 25.0 75.0
2 meetings videoconference 35 25.0 25.0 100.0
Total 140 100.0 100.0
Histogram of Smoking for 1 meeting in- Histogram of Weight_change for 1

person (Group 1) meeting in-person (Group 1)
83
Histogram of Smoking for 1 meeting Histogram of Weight_change for 1

videoconference (Group 2) meeting videoconference (Group 2)
Histogram of Smoking for 2 meetings in- Histogram of Weight_change for 2

person (Group 3) meetings in-person (Group 3)
Histogram of Smoking for 2 meetings Histogram of Weight_change for 2

videoconference (Group 4) meetings videoconference (Group 4)
84
satisfied.
Correlations
Smoking Weight_change
Smoking Pearson Correlation 1 -.386**
N 140 140
Weight_change Pearson Correlation -.386** 1
N 140 140

satisfied.

Box's M 13.425
F 1.452
df1 9
df2 211960.592
Sig. .160
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
Smoking 2.375 3 136 .073
Weight_change .183 3 136 .908

85
(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Effect Value F Hypothesis dfError df Sig.
Wilks' Lambda .114 525.615a 2.000 135.000 .000
a
Roy's Largest Root 7.787 525.615 2.000 135.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .837 4.192a 6.000 270.000 .000
a. Exact statistic
Comparisons table.
Dependent (I) Group (J) Group

Variable Mean
Difference
Smoking 1 meeting in- 1 meeting videoconference -.11 1.133 1.000
person 2 meetings in-person 3.09 * 1.133 .044
2 meetings videoconference 2.97 1.133 .058
1 meeting 1 meeting in-person .11 1.133 1.000
videoconference 2 meetings in-person 3.20* 1.133 .033
2 meetings videoconference 3.09* 1.133 .044
2 meetings 1 meeting in-person -3.09* 1.133 .044
in-person 1 meeting videoconference -3.20* 1.133 .033
2 meetings videoconference -.11 1.133 1.000
2 meetings 1 meeting in-person -2.97 1.133 .058
videoconference 1 meeting videoconference -3.09* 1.133 .044
2 meetings in-person .11 1.133 1.000
Weight_change 1 meeting 1 meeting videoconference 1.1711 .56850 .248
in-person 2 meetings in-person -.6931 .56850 1.000
2 meetings videoconference -1.0289 .56850 .435
1 meeting 1 meeting in-person -1.1711 .56850 .248
videoconference 2 meetings in-person -1.8643* .56850 .008
2 meetings videoconference -2.2000* .56850 .001
2 meetings 1 meeting in-person .6931 .56850 1.000
in-person 1 meeting videoconference 1.8643* .56850 .008
2 meetings videoconference -.3357 .56850 1.000
2 meetings 1 meeting in-person 1.0289 .56850 .435
videoconference 1 meeting videoconference 2.2000* .56850 .001
2 meetings in-person .3357 .56850 1.000
86
Group
Smoking 1 meeting in-person 9.600 .801 8.015 11.185
1 meeting videoconference 9.714 .801 8.130 11.299
2 meetings in-person 6.514 .801 4.930 8.099
2 meetings videoconference 6.629 .801 5.044 8.213
Weight_change 1 meeting in-person 3.357 .402 2.562 4.152
MANOVA:
Groups p
Smoking μ(1 meeting in-person) = 9.60 : μ(1 meeting VC) = 9.71 1.000
μ(1 meeting in-person) = 9.60 : μ(2 meetings in-person) = 6.51 .044*
μ(1 meeting in-person) = 9.60 : μ(2 meetings VC) = 6.63 .058
μ(1 meeting VC) = 9.71 : μ(2 meetings in-person) = 6.51 .033*
μ(1 meeting VC) = 9.71 : μ(2 meetings VC) = 6.63 .044*
μ(2 meetings in-person) = 6.51 : μ(2 meetings VC) = 6.63 1.000
Weight_change μ(1 meeting in-person) = 3.36 : μ(1 meeting VC) = 2.19 .248
μ(1 meeting in-person) = 3.36 : μ(2 meetings in-person) = 4.05 1.000
μ(1 meeting in-person) = 3.36 : μ(2 meetings VC) = 4.39 .435
μ(1 meeting VC) = 2.19 : μ(2 meetings VC) = 4.39 .001*
μ(2 meetings in-person) = 4.05 : μ(2 meetings VC) = 4.39 1.000
NOTE: VC = Videoconference
87
(d)
To determine the best modality to promote smoking cessation using psychoeducational

support groups, we randomly assigned 140 participants to each of the following groups:
1 in-person meeting per week, 2 in-person meetings per week, 1 videoconference
meeting per week, and 2 videoconference meetings per week. At the conclusion, we
gathered smoking and weight data on each participant.
Those who attended 2 in-person meetings per week had a significantly lower daily
smoking mean ( = 6.51) than those who attended 1 video conference per week ( =
9.71, p = .033). Similarly, those who attended 2 videoconferences per week ( = 6.63)
significantly outperformed those who had 1 videoconference per week ( = 9.71, p =
.044). Additionally, we discovered that those who attended 2 in-person meetings per
week ( = 6.51) smoked significantly less than those who attended 1 in-person meeting
per week ( = 9.60, p = 0.44). In general, two meetings per week appears to be more
beneficial than one meeting in reducing daily smoking.
We also detected higher weight gains among those who met twice a week, compared to
those who met once per week. Those who met twice per week in person had a mean
weight gain of 4.05 pounds; those who met twice per week via videoconference had a
mean weight gain of 4.39 pounds – these weight gains are significantly higher than the
2.19 mean those who met once per week via videoconference (p < .01).
88
Exercise 8.9B
(a)
H0: Smoking cessation efforts has no effect on smoking or weight.
H1: Smoking cessation efforts has an effect on smoking.
H2: Smoking cessation efforts has an effect on weight.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid 1 meeting in-person 31 23.5 23.5 23.5
1 meeting videoconference 33 25.0 25.0 48.5
2 meetings in-person 30 22.7 22.7 71.2
2 meetings videoconference 38 28.8 28.8 100.0
Total 132 100.0 100.0
Histogram of Smoking for 1 meeting in- Histogram of Weight_change for 1

person (Group 1) meeting in-person (Group 1)
89
Histogram of Smoking for 1 meeting Histogram of Weight_change for 1

videoconference (Group 2) meeting videoconference (Group 2)
Histogram of Smoking for 2 meetings in- Histogram of Weight_change for 2

person (Group 3) meetings in-person (Group 3)
Histogram of Smoking for 2 meetings Histogram of Weight_change for 2

videoconference (Group 4) meetings videoconference (Group 4)
90
satisfied.
Correlations
Smoking Weight_change
Smoking Pearson Correlation 1 -.870**
N 132 132
Weight_change Pearson Correlation -.870** 1
N 132 132

satisfied.

Box's M 18.489
F 1.996
df1 9
df2 166412.708
Sig. .036
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
Smoking .284 3 128 .837
Weight_change 1.945 3 128 .126

91
(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .017 3641.001a 2.000 127.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .840 3.843a 6.000 254.000 .001
a. Exact statistic
Comparisons table.
Dependent (I) Group (J) Group

Variable Mean
Difference
Smoking 1 meeting in-person 1 meeting videoconference -5.30* 1.874 .033
2 meetings in-person .78 1.919 1.000
2 meetings videoconference -4.91* 1.813 .046
1 meeting 1 meeting in-person 5.30* 1.874 .033
videoconference 2 meetings in-person 6.08* 1.890 .010
2 meetings videoconference .38 1.783 1.000
2 meetings in-person 1 meeting in-person -.78 1.919 1.000
1 meeting videoconference -6.08* 1.890 .010
2 meetings videoconference -5.69* 1.830 .014
2 meetings 1 meeting in-person 4.91* 1.813 .046
videoconference 1 meeting videoconference -.38 1.783 1.000
2 meetings in-person 5.69* 1.830 .014
Weight_change 1 meeting in-person 1 meeting videoconference 1.8038* .57142 .012
2 meetings in-person .4621 .58510 1.000
2 meetings videoconference 1.8410* .55291 .007
1 meeting 1 meeting in-person -1.8038* .57142 .012
videoconference 2 meetings in-person -1.3417 .57631 .129
2 meetings videoconference .0373 .54361 1.000
2 meetings in-person 1 meeting in-person -.4621 .58510 1.000
1 meeting videoconference 1.3417 .57631 .129
2 meetings videoconference 1.3789 .55796 .089
2 meetings 1 meeting in-person -1.8410* .55291 .007
videoconference 1 meeting videoconference -.0373 .54361 1.000
2 meetings in-person -1.3789 .55796 .089
92
Group
Smoking 1 meeting in-person 15.613 1.346 12.950 18.276
1 meeting videoconference 20.909 1.304 18.328 23.490
2 meetings in-person 14.833 1.368 12.127 17.540
dimension0
2 meetings videoconference 20.526 1.215 18.121 22.931
Weight_change 1 meeting in-person 4.637 .410 3.825 5.449
MANOVA:
Groups p
Smoking μ(1 meeting in-person) = 15.61 : μ(1 meeting VC) = 20.91 .033*
μ(1 meeting in-person) = 15.61: μ(2 meetings VC) = 20.53 .046*
μ(1 meeting VC) = 20.91 : μ(2 meetings VC) = 20.53 1.000
μ(2 meetings in-person) = 14.83 : μ(2 meetings VC) = 20.53 .014*
Weight_change μ(1 meeting in-person) = 4.64 : μ(1 meeting VC) = 2.83 .012*
μ(1 meeting in-person) = 4.64 : μ(2 meetings VC) = 2.80 .007*
μ(1 meeting VC) = 2.83 : μ(2 meetings in-person) = 4.17 .129
μ(1 meeting VC) = 2.83 : μ(2 meetings VC) = 2.80 1.000
μ(2 meetings in-person) = 4.17 : μ(2 meetings VC) = 2.80 .089
NOTE: VC = Videoconference
93
(d)
To determine the best modality to promote smoking cessation using psychoeducational
support groups, we randomly assigned 132 participants to each of the following groups:
1 in-person meeting per week, 2 in-person meetings per week, 1 videoconference
meeting per week, and 2 videoconference meetings per week. At the conclusion, we
gathered smoking and weight data on each participant.
Those who attended 1 in-person meeting per week ( = 15.61) smoked significantly less
than those who attended 1 videoconference per week ( = 20.91, p = .033) and those
who attended 2 videoconferences per week ( = 20.53, p = .046). Those who attended
2 in-person meetings ( = 14.83) smoked significantly less than those who attended 1
( = 20.91, p = .010) or 2 videoconferences per week ( = 20.53, p = .014). These
findings suggest that in-person outperforms videoconference meetings when it comes to
reducing smoking.
We also detected that those who met once per week in person gained significantly more
weight ( = 4.64) compared to those who met once per week via videoconference ( =
2.83, p = .012) and those who attended 2 videoconferences per week ( = 2.80, p =
.007).
94
Exercise 8.10A
(a)
H0: Medication dosage adherence and health outlook are not aided by education or text
messages.
H1: Medication dosage adherence is aided by education or text messages.
H2: Health outlook is aided by education or text messages.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid Control 30 25.0 25.0 25.0
Rx workshop 30 25.0 25.0 50.0
Texts 30 25.0 25.0 75.0
Rx workshop & texts 30 25.0 25.0 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
Histogram of Health_outlook for Control

Histogram of RxAdhere for Control (Group 1)
(Group 1)
95
Histogram of RxAdhere for Rx workshop Histogram of Health_outlook for Rx

(Group 2) workshop (Group 2)
Histogram of RxAdhere for Texts (Group Histogram of Health_outlook for Texts

3) (Group 3)
Histogram of RxAdhere for Rx Workshop Histogram of Health_outlook for Rx

& texts (Group 4) workshop & texts (Group 4)
96
satisfied.
Correlations
RxAdhere Health_outlook
RxAdhere Pearson Correlation 1 .417**
N 120 120
Health_outlook Pearson Correlation .417** 1
N 120 120

satisfied.

Box's M 3.524
F .379
df1 9
df2 154203.164
Sig. .946
that the observed
Group


F df1 df2 Sig.
RxAdhere .393 3 116 .758
Health_outlook .993 3 116 .399

97
(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .002 24482.966a 2.000 115.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .723 6.749a 6.000 230.000 .000
a. Exact statistic
Comparisons table.
Mean
RxAdhere Control Rx workshop -2.90 1.099 .057
Texts -3.37* 1.099 .016
Rx workshop & texts -4.43* 1.099 .001
Rx workshop Control 2.90 1.099 .057
Texts -.47 1.099 1.000
Rx workshop & texts -1.53 1.099 .994
Texts Control 3.37* 1.099 .016
Rx workshop .47 1.099 1.000
Rx workshop & texts -1.07 1.099 1.000
Rx workshop & texts Control 4.43* 1.099 .001
Rx workshop 1.53 1.099 .994
dimension1
Texts 1.07 1.099 1.000
Health_outlook Control Rx workshop .50 .913 1.000
Texts -3.23* .913 .003
Rx workshop & texts -3.27* .913 .003
Rx workshop Control -.50 .913 1.000
Texts -3.73* .913 .000
Texts Control 3.23* .913 .003
Rx workshop 3.73* .913 .000
Rx workshop & texts -.03 .913 1.000
Rx workshop & texts Control 3.27* .913 .003
Rx workshop 3.77* .913 .000
Texts .03 .913 1.000
98
Group
RxAdhere Control 82.100 .777 80.561 83.639
Rx workshop 85.000 .777 83.461 86.539
Texts 85.467 .777 83.927 87.006
dimension0
Rx workshop & texts 86.533 .777 84.994 88.073
Health_outlook Control 11.667 .646 10.388 12.946
Rx workshop 11.167 .646 9.888 12.446
Texts 14.900 .646 13.621 16.179
MANOVA:
Groups p
RxAdhere μ(Control) = 82.10 : μ(Rx workshop) = 85.00 .057
RxAdhere μ(Control) = 82.10 : μ(Texts) = 85.47 .016*
RxAdhere μ(Control) = 82.10 : μ(Rx workshop & texts) = 86.53 .001*
RxAdhere μ(Rx workshop) = 85.00 : μ(Texts) = 85.47 1.000
RxAdhere μ(Rx workshop) = 85.00 : μ(Rx workshop & texts) = 86.53 .994
RxAdhere μ(Texts) = 85.47 : μ(Rx workshop & texts) = 86.53 1.000
Health outlook μ(Control) = 11.67 : μ(Rx workshop) = 11.17 1.000

Health outlook μ(Control) = 11.67 : μ(Texts) = 14.90 .003*
Health outlook μ(Control) = 11.67 : μ(Rx workshop & texts) = 14.93 .003*
Health outlook μ(Rx workshop) = 11.17 : μ(Texts) = 14.90 .000*
Health outlook μ(Rx workshop) = 11.17 : μ(Rx workshop & texts) = 14.93 .000*
Health outlook μ(Texts) = 14.90 : μ(Rx workshop & texts) = 14.93 1.000
99
(d)
In an effort to enhance medication dosage adherence, 120 participants were recruited
and randomly assigned to one of four groups: Group 1 served as the control group;
Group 2 attended a nurse administered medication adherence workshop, Group 3
received dosage reminder text messages (e.g., “It’s time to take one tablet of Drug A”),
and Group 4 attended the workshop and received text messages. We also
administered the Acme Health Outlook Survey – a self-administered instrument to
measure how pessimistic / optimistic one feels about his / her health (1 = Strong
negative outlook… 20 = Strong positive outlook).
After a month, medication adherence percentage was significantly higher among those
who received the text messages (μ = 85.47) compared to those in the control group (μ =
82.10, p = .016); further, those who had the Rx adherence workshop with text
messages (μ = 86.53) had higher adherence compared to those in the control group (μ
= 82.10, p < .001).
A significantly higher health outlook was found among those who received the text
messages (μ = 14.90) and those who had the Rx adherence workshop with texts (μ =
14.93) compared to those in the control group (μ = 11.67, p = .003). Similarly, the same
two groups had significantly higher health outlook scores compared to those who had
the Rx adherence workshop only (μ = 11.17, p < .001).
100
Exercise 8.10B
(a)
H0: Medication dosage adherence and health outlook are not aided by education or text
messages.
H1: Medication dosage adherence is aided by education or text messages.
H2: Health outlook is aided by education or text messages.
(b)
Group
Cumulative
Valid Control 36 27.7 27.7 27.7
Rx workshop 30 23.1 23.1 50.8
Texts 32 24.6 24.6 75.4
Rx workshop & texts 32 24.6 24.6 100.0
Total 130 100.0 100.0
Histogram of RxAdhere for Control Histogram of Health_outlook for Control

(Group 1) (Group 1)
101
Histogram of RxAdhere for Rx workshop Histogram of Health_outlook for Rx

(Group 2) workshop (Group 2)
Histogram of RxAdhere for Texts (Group Histogram of Health_outlook for Texts

3) (Group 3)
102
Histogram of RxAdhere for Rx Workshop Histogram of Health_outlook for Rx

& texts (Group 4) workshop & texts (Group 4)
satisfied.
Correlations
RxAdhere Health_outlook
RxAdhere Pearson Correlation 1 .766**
N 130 130
Health_outlook Pearson Correlation .766** 1
N 130 130

satisfied.

Box's M 1.499
F .162
df1 9
df2 170164.593
Sig. .997
that the observed
Group
103


F df1 df2 Sig.
RxAdhere .210 3 126 .890
Health_outlook .263 3 126 .852

(c)
Multivariate Testsc
Wilks' Lambda .006 10420.375a 2.000 125.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .736 6.908a 6.000 250.000 .000
a. Exact statistic
Comparisons table.
104
Mean
RxAdhere Control Rx workshop -.16 1.715 1.000
Texts -5.06* 1.685 .020
Rx workshop Control .16 1.715 1.000
Texts -4.90* 1.763 .038
Texts Control 5.06* 1.685 .020
Rx workshop 4.90* 1.763 .038
Rx workshop & texts -.38 1.734 1.000
Rx workshop & texts Control 5.43* 1.685 .010
Rx workshop 5.28* 1.763 .020
Texts .38 1.734 1.000
Health_outlook Control Rx workshop -1.68* .580 .026
Texts -2.25* .570 .001
Rx workshop Control 1.68* .580 .026
Texts -.57 .596 1.000
Rx workshop & texts -1.22 .596 .253
Texts Control 2.25* .570 .001
Rx workshop .57 .596 1.000
Rx workshop & texts -.66 .586 1.000
Rx workshop & texts Control 2.91* .570 .000
Rx workshop 1.22 .596 .253
Texts .66 .586 1.000
Group
RxAdhere Control 78.444 1.156 76.157 80.732
Rx workshop 78.600 1.266 76.094 81.106
Texts 83.500 1.226 81.074 85.926
Rx workshop & texts 83.875 1.226 81.449 86.301
Health_outlook Control 11.250 .391 10.477 12.023
Rx workshop 12.933 .428 12.086 13.781
Texts 13.500 .415 12.680 14.320
MANOVA:
105
Groups p
RxAdhere μ(Control) = 78.44 : μ(Rx workshop) = 78.60 1.00
RxAdhere μ(Control) = 78.44 : μ(Texts) = 83.50 .020*
RxAdhere μ(Control) = 78.44 : μ(Rx workshop & texts) = 83.87 .010*
RxAdhere μ(Rx workshop) = 78.60 : μ(Texts) = 83.50 .038*
RxAdhere μ(Rx workshop) = 78.60 : μ(Rx workshop & texts) = 83.87 .020*
RxAdhere μ(Texts) = 83.50 : μ(Rx workshop & texts) = 83.87 1.000
Health outlook μ(Control) = 11.25 : μ(Rx workshop) = 12.93 .026*

Health outlook μ(Control) = 11.25 : μ(Texts) = 13.50 .001*
Health outlook μ(Control) = 11.25 : μ(Rx workshop & texts) = 14.16 .000*
Health outlook μ(Rx workshop) = 12.93 : μ(Texts) = 13.50 1.000
Health outlook μ(Rx workshop) = 12.93 : μ(Rx workshop & texts) = 14.16 .253
Health outlook μ(Texts) = 13.50 : μ(Rx workshop & texts) = 14.16 1.000
(d)
In an effort to enhance medication dosage adherence, 130 participants were recruited
and randomly assigned to one of four groups: Group 1 served as the control group;
Group 2 attended a nurse administered medication adherence workshop, Group 3
received dosage reminder text messages (e.g., “It’s time to take one tablet of Drug A”),
and Group 4 attended the workshop and received text messages. We also
administered the Acme Health Outlook Survey – a self-administered instrument to
measure how pessimistic / optimistic one feels about his / her health (1 = Strong
negative outlook… 20 = Strong positive outlook).
After a month, medication adherence percentage was significantly higher among those
who received the text messages (μ = 83.50) compared to those in the control group (μ =
78.44, p = .020); further, those who had the Rx adherence workshop with text
messages (μ = 83.87) had higher adherence compared to those in the control group (μ
= 78.44, p = .010). Additionally, those who received texts outperformed those in the Rx
adherence workshop (μ =78.60, p = .038), and those in the Rx workshop with texts (μ =
83.87) outperformed those in the Rx workshop (μ =78.60, p = .020).
A significantly higher health outlook was found among each of the treatment groups (Rx
workshop μ = 12.93, Texts μ = 13.50, Rx workshop with texts μ = 14.16) compared to
control group (μ = 11.25, p < .03).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Garden Plow Made of Pick-Up Material
By T. T. STURGEON
T he labor of spading a garden of even moderate size is sufficient to

warrant the person who undertakes the job in making a hand plow
like that shown in the illustration, for it will serve many years, with
reasonable care. I made one worth about $5 at an outlay of 25 cents,
gathering the necessary wood and metal from among old machine
parts and pick-up material.
An old wheelbarrow provided the 16-in. wheel. The handles were
made from a ⁷⁄₈ by 4-in. strip of spruce, 5 ft. long. They were marked
on the strip so that one of the curved grips was at each end, on
opposite edges. The curved parts of the grips were cut with a
keyhole saw, and when a kerf long enough to admit a large ripsaw
was cut, the board was ripped into the two handles. They were
smoothed and the grips trimmed with a sharp knife. A section of
broomstick was cut for the upper brace. The lower one is made of a
strip of iron, ¹⁄₄ by 1¹⁄₄ by 12 in., drilled for ¹⁄₄-in. bolts, and bent at
right angles, 1¹⁄₂ in. from each end. Drill a ¹⁄₄-in. hole at the middle, to
engage a bolt on which the vertical strip is supported, and adjusted
to the operator, as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1
Fig. 4
Fig. 2
Fig. 5 Fig. 3
This Hand Garden Plow was Made of Old Material, a Shovel being Used for
the Making of the Moldboard
Cut a strip, ¹⁄₄ by 1¹⁄₄ by 18 in., for the vertical support, shown in
Fig. 5. Drill four ¹⁄₄-in. adjusting holes, 1 in. apart, at the upper end,
and three ¹⁄₄-in. holes at the lower end for fastening the strip to the
moldboard, as shown in Fig. 3. Drill a ⁵⁄₁₆-in. hole at the 7¹⁄₂-in. mark,
for bolting the strip to the braces, the other ends of which are fitted
on the ³⁄₈ by 10-in. bolt used as an axle. Cut the two braces 14 in.
long, of ¹⁄₄ by 1¹⁄₄-in. strips, and drill a ³⁄₈-in. hole in the forward end
of each, to fit the axle, and a ⁵⁄₁₆-in. hole in the opposite ends, 1 in.
from the ends in each case. Cut a strip, ¹⁄₈ by ³⁄₄ by 12 in., for the
landside, as shown in Fig. 2, bent under the moldboard, and bolted
to it. The proper angle can best be bent after the moldboard is made
and fitted.
The method of marking the shape of the moldboard on the blade
of an old shovel is shown in Fig. 4. Make a pattern of cardboard,
marking it into 1-in. squares. Draw the shape of the moldboard by
tracing the outline through the corresponding squares, using the
diagram as a guide. Mark the position of the bolt holes, for fastening
it to the vertical support, indicated by the dash lines at the right. Cut
out the pattern and trace around it on the shovel, using the thickest
part for the point of the share. Cut out the outline, smooth the edges,
and point up the cutting edge. Drill holes for fastening the moldboard
to the vertical strap with ¹⁄₄-in. bolts, and for the fastenings to the
landside, with ³⁄₁₆-in. bolts.
Curve the moldboard into shape and fit it to the various supports
so that it sits properly, as shown in Fig. 1, seen from the furrow side,
in Fig. 2, from the rear, and in Fig. 3, from the land side. Bend the
12-in. strip into shape, as shown in Fig. 3, and bolt it into place, to
form the landside. Assemble the parts, being careful that the wheel
and landside are set in line, as shown in Fig. 2, and that the rear
edge of the latter is raised slightly, as in Fig. 3. The plow should be
given a coat of paint, and the cutting parts made smooth, and oiled.
An Interesting Water Telescope
A water telescope is easy to make and will afford much pleasure in
exploring plant or animal life in comparatively shallow water. The
device is made by fitting a heavy glass disk into the end of a round
metal tube, about 2 in. in diameter. The glass is fitted between two
rings of metal, preferably with a small flange set against the glass. A
waterproof cement is used to fix the glass between the rings. To use
the “telescope,” rest it on the side of a boat or other convenient place
at the water, and set the lower end, containing the glass, under the
water. Remarkably clear views may be had in this way.—S. Leonard
Bastin, Bournemouth, England.
Writing on a Moving Train
Writing legibly on a fast-moving train is difficult to a person
unaccustomed to it. The railroad conductor knows the trick of it and
manages to get along quite satisfactorily. He prefers to write in a
standing position and holds his right elbow firmly against his side.
The reason for this is that in a sitting posture there is too much
lateral movement in the trunk of the body, while in a standing
position this is more easily controlled. When the arm swings freely,
as in ordinary writing, several joints of the body are affected in the
process, each of which is capable of its own motion. Holding the
elbow against one’s ribs “breaks” these motion tendencies, except
that of the wrist, which movement is necessary in writing, and thus
the pencil, or pen, is more easily controlled.
The same principles modified apply in using a typewriter on a
moving train. Many traveling men, news correspondents, and others,
carry portable typewriters and do much of their writing while traveling
on trains, not to mention the various railroad and government men
who travel in office cars and necessarily must get out their
correspondence en route. It is extremely difficult to execute neat
typewriting on a moving train with free-arm movement, even though
the central portion of the car where the vibration and swing is less
severe, is selected. As I am employed in such capacity, I had to
evolve some plan to expedite the work. I am able to do typewriting
quite rapidly by resting the palm of the hands, near the wrists,
against the front edge of the typewriter frame surrounding the
keyboard, and using the swing of the fingers instead of that of the
whole arm, as in ordinary typewriting.—Victor Labadie. Dallas, Tex.
A Revolving Window Display
A jeweler attracted passers-by and not a few customers by placing
a revolving display in his window which was kept in motion by means
of the arrangement shown in the sketch. A 10-in. cut-glass bowl was
placed, upside down, near the front of the show window. An inverted
tumbler was set upon it and a small tin box was pivoted on the
tumbler by means of a needle soldered inside of it. Six arms of wire
were soldered to the box, and watches were suspended from them.
The carefully balanced frame revolved easily on the point of the
needle. It was kept in motion by the draft from a fan hidden behind a
mirror.—H. S. Hart, Shreveport, La.
A Horse-Drawn Sod Cutter
The cutting of a considerable area of sod is tedious work when
done by hand, and it is difficult to make the sections of uniform
thickness and size. These important features are provided for by the
use of the homemade sod cutter shown in the sketch. To start a cut
across a meadow or lot, a notch is cut in the turf for the blade, and
the device is set into place, stamping it down to give a good start.
The operator stands on the plank in front of the blade, and a little
practice will soon determine the best position for ease in operation.
When a cut has been completed, the cutter is dragged to a fresh
starting place, the driver turning it over on the upper side. The strips
are cut into suitable lengths and piled conveniently for removal with a
stone boat or wagon.
With This Device Sod may be Cut Quickly and of Uniform Width and
Thickness
The device may be made of any suitable width; 15 in. between the
inner edges of the blade, and the latter set to cut a depth of about
2¹⁄₂ in., being desirable. The board is a 2-in. plank, about 4 ft. long.
The blade should be set with the cutting edge slanting slightly
downward so as to make the device “bite” into the ground. A smaller
cutter may be made for use by boys, several of whom may draw it.—
F. H. Sweet, Waynesboro, Va.
A Match-Box Trick
All that is required to perform this trick is a box of safety matches.

Four matches are removed and three of them arranged as shown in
the sketch. The performer then tells his friends that he will light the
fourth match and set the cross match on fire in the center, then asks
which match of the standing ones will light first. Most persons will not
stop to think and guess either one or the other. As a matter of fact,
after the cross match is set on fire it soon burns the wood away, and
the pressure of the two side matches will cause it to spring out so
that neither catches fire.—Contributed by Abner B. Shaw, North
Dartmouth, Massachusetts.
Cutting Glass Bottle with Electricity
Performing an experiment in a laboratory, it became necessary to

have some apparatus which we did not possess at the time. A bell
jar could have been used, but this we did not have, and as a
substitute we used a large glass bottle, 8 in. in diameter, with the
bottom removed. In order to do this, we first made a mark around the
outside of the bottle near the bottom with a glass cutter. A piece of
copper wire, ¹⁄₃₂ in. in diameter, was then wound around the outside
on the mark and connected to the circuit.
As the wire would expand enough to make it slip off the bottle
when heated red-hot, pliers were used to keep it taut about the bottle
when the current was turned on. A current of 110 volts and 5
amperes was run through the wire, heating it red-hot, and this
cracked the glass exactly on the line marked by the glass cutter.—
Contributed by R. E. Hollis, Chicago, Ill.
Nail Cabinet with Muffin-Pan Trays
Muffin-pan trays used by the housewife in baking make
serviceable containers for nails, screws, and other small articles
used in a shop. The illustration shows the pans fitted into a box, and
sliding in grooves cut into the sides with a saw.
The Metal Trays Are Substantial and may be Removed Readily for Use
Elsewhere
The box is made with the end pieces lapping over the top and the
bottom this being a better construction to carry the weight of the
trays. The wood used in the sides is ⁷⁄₈ in. thick, in order that a saw
cut may be made to a depth of ¹⁄₄ in. without weakening the support.
Thinner wood may be used if instead of saw cuts small strips of
wood are nailed against the side on which the trays may slide.—
Contributed by Harry J. Blacklidge, San Rafael, Cal.
Waterproofing Matches
Dipping ordinary parlor matches into melted paraffin and
permitting them to dry thoroughly will enable them to withstand
water. The paraffin acts like a wax candle and is unaffected by the
moisture. This should be of aid to campers and others who find it
hard to keep matches dry.—Contributed by T. W. Lambert, Jr., New
York, N. Y.

(Download PDF) Practical Statistics For Nursing Using SPSS 1st Edition Knapp Solutions Manual Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Download PDF) Practical Statistics For Nursing Using SPSS 1st Edition Knapp Solutions Manual Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Practical Statistics for Nursing Using

SPSS 1st Edition Knapp Solutions

Intermediate Statistics Using SPSS 1st Edition Knapp

Introductory Statistics Using SPSS 2nd Edition Knapp

Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics 5th

Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics 4th

Statistics For Managers Using Microsoft Excel 7th

Statistics for Managers Using Microsoft Excel 8th

Interactive Statistics Informed Decisions Using Data

Statistics for Managers Using Microsoft Exce Global 8th

Exercise Page Exercise Page

Histogram of Pulse for No Meditation Histogram of Stress for No Meditation

Pretest Checklist Criterion 3 – Moderate correlation: The Pearson correlation

Box's Test of Equality of

Pretest Checklist Criterion 4 – Homogeneity of variance-covariance (Box’s M

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Pretest Checklist Criterion 5 – Homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test):

Stress μ(No meditation) = 44.69 : μ(Meditation 3 days) = 39.14 .099

Based on these results, I would reject H0 and accept H1 and H2.

Our research group was interested in discovering supplemental non-pharmacological

Histogram of Pulse for No Meditation Histogram of Stress for No Meditation

Pretest Checklist Criterion 3 – Moderate correlation: The Pearson correlation

Box's Test of Equality of

Pretest Checklist Criterion 4 – Homogeneity of variance-covariance (Box’s M

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Pretest Checklist Criterion 5 – Homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test):

Stress μ(No meditation) = 41.67 : μ(Meditation 3 days) = 39.23 .593

Based on these results, I would accept H0 and reject H1 and H2.

Our research group was interested in discovering supplemental non-pharmacological

Histogram of ANSS for 1:1 Preceptor Histogram of Chart_errors for 1:1

Histogram of ANSS for 2:1 Preceptor Histogram of Chart_errors for 2:1

Histogram of ANSS for 5:1 Preceptor Histogram of C Chart_errors for 5:1

Pretest Checklist Criterion 3 – Moderate correlation: The Pearson correlation

Box's Test of Equality of

Pretest Checklist Criterion 4 – Homogeneity of variance-covariance (Box’s M

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Pretest Checklist Criterion 5 – Homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test):

Charting errors μ(1 : 1) = 1.94 : μ(2 : 1) = 2.22 .947

Based on these results, I would reject H0 and accept H1 and H1.

Histogram of ANSS for 1:1 Preceptor Histogram of Chart_errors for 1:1

Histogram of ANSS for 2:1 Preceptor Histogram of Chart_errors for 2:1

Histogram of ANSS for 5:1 Preceptor Histogram of C Chart_errors for 5:1

Pretest Checklist Criterion 3 – Moderate correlation: The Pearson correlation

Box's Test of Equality of

Pretest Checklist Criterion 4 – Homogeneity of variance-covariance (Box’s M

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Pretest Checklist Criterion 5 – Homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test):

Charting errors μ(1 : 1) = 2.06 : μ(2 : 1) = 3.34 .002*

Based on these results, I would reject H0 and accept H1 and H1.

Histogram of Depress for No plant Histogram of Social_hours for No Plant

Histogram of Depress for Bamboo Histogram of Social_hours for Bamboo

Histogram of Depress for Cactus Histogram of Social_hours for Cactus

Pretest Checklist Criterion 3 – Moderate correlation: The Pearson correlation

Box's Test of Equality of

Pretest Checklist Criterion 4 – Homogeneity of variance-covariance (Box’s M

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Pretest Checklist Criterion 5 – Homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test): Levene’s

Cactus -.158 .4367 1.000 -1.214 .897

Social hours μ(No plant) = 4.72 : μ(Bamboo) = 5.79 .044*

Based on these results, I would reject H0 and accept H1 and H2.

Histogram of Depress for No plant Histogram of Social_hours for No Plant

Histogram of Depress for Bamboo Histogram of Social_hours for Bamboo

Histogram of Depress for Cactus Histogram of Social_hours for Cactus