On the next page is a set of two SPSS simple effects tests using the split file function After looking at the charts, I interpret it this way Following the significant original interaction, F (1, 116) 14 09, p F(1, 58) 2 19, p M 7 39, SD 1 16) than when the model was absent ( M 7 84, SD 0 96) However, the simple effects test did not show significance for No FITD condition, F (1, 58) 12 70, p M 7 53, SD 0 96) or absent ( M 6 02, SD 1 71) Is this a correct interpretation of those simple effects tests Why or why not Yes, it is a correct interpretation in its entirety (there was a significant difference between the prosecution and defense interrogator conditions when they asked the hit version of the question, but there was no difference between the prosecution and defense interrogator conditions when they asked the smashed version of the question It is partially correct, as both simple effects were actually significant (there was a significant difference between the prosecution and defense interrogator conditions when they asked the hit version of the question, and there was a difference between the prosecution and defense interrogator conditions when they asked the smashed version of the question) It is partially incorrect, since neither simple effect was significant (there was no significant difference between the prosecution and defense interrogator conditions in either the smashed or hit question conditions) The interpretation is backwards (there was no significant difference between the prosecution and defense interrogator conditions when they asked the hit version of the question, but there was a difference between the prosecution and defense interrogator conditions when they asked the smashed version of the question There is not enough information in the tables to determine whether this interpretation is correct You run a Two Way AVOVA on this data set and get the following SPSS output (next page) Using this output, interpret the information Between Subjects Factors Value Label N Interrogator (Prosecution Prosecution 60 vs Defense) N Defense 60 Question (Smashed 1 Smashed 60 Hit 2) N Hit 60 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable Speed Estimate Interrogator (Prosecution Question (Smashed 1, vs Defense) Hit 2) Mean Std Deviation N Prosecution Smashed 41 50 5 619 30 Hit 36 53 6 135 30 Total 39 02 6 347 60 Defense Smashed 36 77 7 899 30 Hit 37 53 7 491 30 Total 37 15 7 642 60 Total Smashed 39 13 7 203 60 Hit 37 03 6 807 60 Total 38 08 7 057 120 Tests of Between Subjects Effects Dependent Variable Speed Estimate Type Ill Sum Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig Corrected Model 483 367 W 161 122 3 433 019 Intercept 174040 833 174040 833 3708 574 000 Interrogator 104 533 104 533 2 227 138 QuestionCondition 132 300 132 300 2 819 096 Interrogator 246 533 246 533 5 253 024 QuestionCondition Error 5443 800 116 46 929 Total 179968 000 120 Corrected Total 5927 167 119

The Answer is in the image, click to view ...

Answered step by step

Verified Expert Solution

Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

Posted on Oct 10, 2024

On the next page is a set of two SPSS simple effects tests using the split file function. After looking at the charts, I interpret

On the next page is a set of two SPSS simple effects tests using the split file function. After looking at the charts, I interpret it this way:

"Following the significant original interaction, F(1, 116) = 14.09, p F(1, 58) = 2.19, p M = 7.39, SD = 1.16) than when the model was absent (M = 7.84, SD = 0.96). However, the simple effects test did not show significance for No FITD condition, F(1, 58) = 12.70, p M = 7.53, SD = 0.96) or absent (M = 6.02, SD = 1.71)."

Is this a correct interpretation of those simple effects tests? Why or why not?

Yes, it is a correct interpretation in its entirety (there was a significant difference between the prosecution and defense interrogator conditions when they asked the hit version of the question, but there was no difference between the prosecution and defense interrogator conditions when they asked the smashed version of the question.
It is partially correct, as both simple effects were actually significant (there was a significant difference between the prosecution and defense interrogator conditions when they asked the hit version of the question, and there was a difference between the prosecution and defense interrogator conditions when they asked the smashed version of the question)
It is partially incorrect, since neither simple effect was significant (there was no significant difference between the prosecution and defense interrogator conditions in either the smashed or hit question conditions).
The interpretation is backwards (there was no significant difference between the prosecution and defense interrogator conditions when they asked the hit version of the question, but there was a difference between the prosecution and defense interrogator conditions when they asked the smashed version of the question.
There is not enough information in the tables to determine whether this interpretation is correct.

You run a Two Way AVOVA on this data set and get the following SPSS output (next page). Using this output, interpret the information. Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Interrogator (Prosecution Prosecution 60 vs Defense) - N Defense 60 Question (Smashed = 1 Smashed 60 Hit = 2) N Hit 60 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Speed Estimate Interrogator (Prosecution Question (Smashed = 1, vs Defense) Hit = 2) Mean Std. Deviation N Prosecution Smashed 41.50 5.619 30 Hit 36.53 6.135 30 Total 39.02 6.347 60 Defense Smashed 36.77 7.899 30 Hit 37.53 7.491 30 Total 37.15 7.642 60 Total Smashed 39.13 7.203 60 Hit 37.03 6.807 60 Total 38.08 7.057 120 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Speed Estimate Type Ill Sum Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig Corrected Model 483.367 W 161.122 3.433 019 Intercept 174040.833 174040.833 3708.574 000 Interrogator 104.533 104.533 2.227 138 QuestionCondition 132.300 132.300 2.819 096 Interrogator * 246.533 246.533 5.253 024 QuestionCondition Error 5443.800 116 46.929 Total 179968.000 120 Corrected Total 5927.167 119