Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SPSS Comd Interpret
SPSS Comd Interpret
Interpreting
Frequency
Distributions
1. As you can see, the two parties are listed below: Democrat and Republican. The
Missing category simply reflect the candidates whose party affiliation we could not
determine.
2. Under the Frequency column, we have the number of candidates that were Democrat
(186), Republican (280), or unclassified or missing (5).
3. Finally, we typically use the Valid Percent column in deterring the frequency
distribution of Democrats and Republicans because it does not take into consideration
those cases where we could not assign a category. In this case, 39.9 percent were
Democrat and 61.1 percent were Republican. Clearly, there is a greater number of
Republican than Democratic candidates.
Political Party
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid
Democrat
186
39.5
39.9
Republican
280
59.4
60.1
Total
466
98.9
100.0
Missing 9.00
5
1.1
Total
471
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
39.9
100.0
Chi
Square
Test
Often
we
have
two
nominal
level
variables
(gender,
party
affiliation,
or
ethnicity
for
example)
and
we
need
to
determine
if
a
relationship
exists
between
them.
For
example,
we
may
want
to
know
if
ethnicity
is
related
to
party
affiliation.
We
suspect
it
is
the
case
and
we
hypothesize
because
that
minorities
are
associated
with
the
Democratic
Party
and
whites
with
the
Republican
Party.
Using
a
crosstab
table
and
Chi
Square
test,
we
can
determine
if
there
is
a
relationship
between
two
variable
that
IS
NOT
DUE
TO
CHANCE.
1.
To
do
this,
go
to
AnalyzeDescriptive
StatisticsCrosstabs.
We
put
the
Political
Party
in
the
Row
because
the
dependent
variable
ALWAYS
goes
in
the
Row
box.
We
put
Ethnicity
in
the
Column
because
the
independent
(explanatory
variable)
ALWAYS
goes
in
the
Column
box.
2.
Next
we
click
the
Statistics
button
and
click
Chi
Square,
Phi
and
Cramers
V,
and
Lambda.
Click
the
Continue
button.
3.
Next,
click
the
Cell
button.
Under
Counts,
check
Observed
and
under
Percentages
click
Row,
Column,
and
Total.
Then
click
the
Continue
Button.
4. Click the OK Button to run your crosstab.
Political
Party
Total
90.5%
Totl
177
100.0%
39.0%
39.0%
277
100.0%
61.0%
61.0%
454
100.0%
100.0%
9.5% 100.0%
2.
We
thought,
hypothesized,
that
ethnicity
was
related
to
party
affiliation:
Non-
whites
were
more
likely
to
be
Democrat
and
Whites
more
likely
to
be
Republican.
As
you
can
see
from
the
table
above,
this
is
true.
72%
of
non-whites
called
themselves
Democrats
and
65%
of
whites
called
themselves
Republicans.
So
our
statistics
bear
out
our
hypothesis.
3.
However,
is
there
a
possibility
that
the
relationship
between
ethnicity
and
party
affiliation
is
due
to
chancethat
is
to
say,
there
really
is
no
statistically
significant
reason
to
believe
these
variables
are
related
to
one
another.
To
answer
this
question,
we
use
the
Pearson
Chi-Square
test.
Look
at
the
table
below.
In
the
Pearson
Chi-Square
row,
there
are
numbers
under
three
Sig.
columns.
Disregard
the
column
for
the
time
being.
If
the
number
is
between
.000
and
.050,
we
can
say
that
the
relationship
between
the
independent
variable
(ethnicity
in
this
case)
is
significantly
related
to
the
dependent
variable
(party
affiliation).
This
is
another
way
of
saying
that
the
relationship
is
not
due
to
chance
and
really
exists!
As
you
can
see
below,
the
Chi-Square
coefficient
(number)
is
.000
under
the
Asymp.
Sign
(2-sided)
column.
Therefore,
ethnicity
is
definitely
related
to
party
affiliation
If
the
number
is
.051
or
above,
the
significance
is
due
to
chance
and
we
say
that
we
are
not
confident
that
the
ethnicity
and
party
affiliation
are
related.
Our
hypothesis
that
ethnicity
is
related
to
party
affiliation
is
rejected.
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1Value df
sided)
sided)
sided)
a
21.886 1
.000
20.375 1
.000
21.438 1
.000
.000
.000
21.838 1
.000
Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correctionb
Likelihood Ratio
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
454
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
16.76.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
4.
How
strong
is
the
relationship
between
the
independent
variable
(ethnicity)
and
the
dependent
variable
(party
affiliation).
The
are
two
measures
of
association
and
for
our
purposes
use
Cramers
V
unless
SPSS
spits
out
only
a
Phi
statistic.
Under
the
Value
column,
a
number
is
listed.
The
higher
the
number,
the
greater
the
strength
of
association.
Lets
use
the
following
scale:
0-.30=no
relationship
(0)
to
weak
relationship
.31-.70=moderate
relationship
.71-1.0=strong
relationship
A
strong
relationship
means
that
knowing
the
ethnicity
of
a
person
will
give
us
very
good
reason
to
guess
the
political
party
with
which
they
are
affiliated.
A
weak
relationship,
means
that
knowing
the
ethnicity
of
a
person
gives
does
not
give
us
much
confidence
is
guessing
the
persons
political
party
affiliation.
In
this
case,
the
association
is
weak
(.220).
If
I
guess
the
persons
political
affiliation
based
on
a
persons
apparent
race,
I
would
likely
be
wrong!
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by
Phi
-.220
.000
Nominal
Cramer's
.220
.000
V
N of Valid Cases
454
Pearson
Correlation
A correlation is a powerful way to determine the association between two interval level
variables. An interval level variable is one whose values are an equal distance apart. For
example, income (dollars), ages (years), experience in politics measured in years (years),
and percent of the vote (percentages). Male and female are not interval level variables,
because they are not expressed in values equal distance apart. They are categorical
variables.
For example, we may be interested in determining if political experience as measured by
the number of years a person has served in office is related to campaign funds raised. We
suspect that the longer the incumbent is in office, the more campaign funds s/he will
raise. After all, an incumbent has political power and is likely to be reelected: we would
want to contribute to the incumbent.
1. To do a correlation analysis, go to AnalyzeCorrelationBivariate
2. Find and double click the variables Political Experience and Money Raised. This
will put these two variables in the variable window.
3. Click the OK button to run your correlation.
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Money Raised
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Money
Raised
.331**
462
.331**
.000
414
1
.000
414
421
Multiple
Regression
A
very
powerful
way
to
analyze
data
is
by
using
a
multiple
regression.
For
our
purposes,
a
multiple
regression
allow
us
to
look
at
several
factors
that
affect
a
dependent
variable
and
determine
what
factors
exert
a
greater
influence
on
the
dependent
variable.
For
example,
we
may
suspect
that
the
size
of
a
persons
vote
is
determined
by
the
quality
of
the
candidate
AND
the
amount
of
money
raised.
After
all,
better
Senate
candidates
will
win
a
greater
percentage
of
the
vote
than
poorer
Senate
candidates
and
candidates
with
more
money
will
be
able
to
spend
more
to
get
elected.
With
more
money
to
spend,
they
should
get
a
greater
percent
of
the
vote.
But,
which
factor
is
more
important:
candidate
quality
or
money
raised.
To
answer
this
question,
we
do
a
multiple
regression.
1.
Go
to
AnalyzeRegressionLinear
2.
Since
the
dependent
variable
is
the
percentage
of
the
vote
a
candidate
received,
we
put
Vote:
Primary
or
Convention
in
the
Dependent
variable
box.
The
two
independent
variables
we
expect
to
influence
the
dependent
variable
goe
in
the
Independent(s)
variable
box.
It
should
look
like
this:
3.
Click
the
OK
button.
Interpreting
Your
Multiple
Regression
1.
Your
output
produces
a
number
of
tables.
Lets
look
at
the
most
important
tables.
1.
The
first
table,
Variables
Entered/Removed,
tells
you
what
variables
were
used
in
the
analysis.
As
you
can
see,
Money
Raised
and
Political
Experience
were
used.
Under
the
table,
you
can
see
that
the
dependent
variable
was
Vote:
Primary
or
Convention.
Variables Entered/Removedb,c
Variables
Removed
Model
Variables Entered
1
Money Raised, Political Experience
(Years)
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: Vote: Primary or Convention
c. Models are based only on cases for which Office = Senate
Method
. Enter
2.
There
are
two
coefficients
or
numbers
that
are
important:
the
R
and
R
Square.
The
R
is
the
combined
effect
of
all
the
independent
variables
on
the
dependent
variable.
In
this
case
there
is
a
moderate,
positive
association
between
money
raised
and
candidate
quality
(.662).
The
R
Square
simply
means
that
these
two
variables
explain
43.8
percent
of
the
variance
in
the
dependent
variable:
the
vote.
This
is
a
technical
way
of
saying
that
there
are
other
factors
(variables)
that
explain
the
remaining
56.2
percent
of
the
variance.
What
might
they
be?
How
about
incumbency
or
candidate
quality?
Model Summary
R
Office =
Adjusted R
Std. Error of
Senate
Model
R Square
Square
the Estimate
(Selected)
1
.662a
.438
.432
20.33142
a. Predictors: (Constant), Money Raised, Political Experience (Years)
3.
In
the
ANOVA
table,
look
only
at
the
Sig.
column.
If
the
number
is
between
.000-
.05
inclusive,
then
we
can
say
that
the
relationship
between
the
independent
variables
(money
raised
and
candidate
quality
in
this
case)
and
the
dependent
variable
(share
of
the
vote)
is
not
due
to
chancewhich
is
the
case
here.
This
means
that
we
are
confident
that
money
raised
and
candidate
quality
influence
the
vote.
If
it
is
greater
than
.05
(for
example
.051
or
.60
or
.154),
then
the
relationship
MIGHT
BE
DUE
TO
CHANCE
and
we
should
say
we
are
not
confident
that
money
raised
and
candidate
quality
are
linked
to
the
percentage
of
the
vote.
ANOVAb,c
Model
Sum of Squares df Mean Square
F
Sig.
1 Regression
62539.414
2
31269.707 75.646 .000a
Residual
80193.138 194
413.367
Total
142732.552 196
a. Predictors: (Constant), Money Raised, Political Experience (Years)
b. Dependent Variable: Vote: Primary or Convention
c. Selecting only cases for which Office = Senate
4.
A
very
important
table
is
the
Coefficients
table.
This
table
tell
us,
among
other
things,
how
much
influence
each
independent
variable
exerts
on
the
depend
variable.
Note
the
following
columns.
a.
Under
Model
are
listed
the
two
independent
variablesPolitical
Experience
and
Money
Raised.
b.
Really
important
are
the
coefficients
(numbers)
under
the
column
Standardized
Coefficients,
Beta.
The
higher
the
number
the
more
influence
this
variable
influences
the
dependent
variable,
the
percentage
of
the
vote.
In
this
case,
you
can
see
that
Political
Experience
(.398)
is
more
important
than
Money
Raised
(.370)but
not
much
more.
Thus,
we
can
say
that
political
experience
is
more
important
than
money
in
explaining
voting
for
Senate
candidatesbut
not
by
much!
In
some
cases
the
Beta
coefficient
will
have
a
negative
sign
in
front
of
it.
Disregard
this
sign
in
interpreting
which
variable
exerts
the
most
influence
over
the
dependent
variable.
The
larger
the
number,
regardless
of
the
sign,
exerts
more
influence.
c.
The
Sig.
column
simply
states
whether
the
independent
variables
(political
experience
and
money
raised)
are
significantly
related
to
the
dependent
variable
(percent
of
the
vote).
If
the
number
is
between
.000
and
.050,
we
can
say
that
the
relationship
is
NOT
due
to
chance:
that
there
is
a
significant
relationship
between
this
variable
and
the
dependent
variable.
As
you
can
see,
the
relationship
is
significant
and
we
can
say
that
political
experience
and
money
raised
are
significantly
related
to
the
vote.
Model
Coefficientsa,b
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
16.224
1.698
1.077
.166
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
1 (Constant)
Political Experience
(Years)
Money Raised
2.470E-6
.000
a. Dependent Variable: Vote: Primary or Convention
b. Selecting only cases for which Office = Senate
Sig.
9.556 .000
.398 6.485 .000
.370 6.024 .000