2020
DOI: 10.4324/9781003117445
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

SPSS Survival Manual

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

21
1,057
0
120

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 988 publications
(1,198 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
21
1,057
0
120
Order By: Relevance
“…Multicollinearity of the variables was checked using variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance. The tolerance values of all the variables were greater than 0.1 and the VIF values were less than 10, reflecting the model meets the assumption of multicollinearity (Pallant, 2013); in other words, the predictor variables are not strongly related to each other. All analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 (Version 19, IBM SPSS, 2010).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Multicollinearity of the variables was checked using variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance. The tolerance values of all the variables were greater than 0.1 and the VIF values were less than 10, reflecting the model meets the assumption of multicollinearity (Pallant, 2013); in other words, the predictor variables are not strongly related to each other. All analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 (Version 19, IBM SPSS, 2010).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…This study analyses data based on enrolment in the MOOC, and responses provided for the three-words activities in the introductory week (Time 1) and responses to this activity when repeated in the final week of the MOOC (Time 2). Given sentiment analyses generate three different scores (valence, arousal, dominance dimensions) for each activity, we used a more conservative statistical significance level of p < .0166 (Bonferroni correction: .05/3 = .0166) to adjust for multiple testing and account for the increased risk of Type I error [73]. As recommended [74], we also calculated effect sizes to consider the magnitude of the effects found, which were interpreted using standard recommendations [75,76].…”
Section: Statistical Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A first limitation of this study is that for the principal component analysis the sample size might be too small. A larger number of participants than in this study is normally recommended (Pallant, 2010). The small number of participants could have played a part in not finding clear latent structures among our variables.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To compare proportions, we used chi-square tests, and to compare differences in duration, frequency, and duration per episode, we used non-parametric Mann–Whitney U tests, because assumptions regarding normality and equal variance were violated. Corresponding effect size r was calculated using the formula of Pallant (2010).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%