How do I report a 1-way between

subjects ANOVA in APA style? (see tables

below)
Three or four things to report

You will be reporting three or four things, depending on whether you find a significant result for your 1-Way
Betwee Subjects ANOVA

1. Test type and use

You want to tell your reader what type of analysis you conducted. This will help your reader make sense of
your results. You also want to tell your reader why this particular analysis was used. What did your analysis
test for?

Example

You can report data from your own experiments by using the template below.

“A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of (IV)______________ on
(DV)_______________ in _________________,
__________________, and __________________ conditions.”

If we were reporting data for our example, we might write a sentence like this.
“A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of sugar on memory for words
in sugar, a little sugar and no sugar conditions.”

2. Significant differences between conditions

You want to tell your reader whether or not there was a significant difference between condition means. You
can report data from your own experiments by using the template below.

“There was a significant (not a significant) effect of IV ____________ on DV ______________ at the p<.05
level for the three conditions [F(___, ___) = ___, p = ____].

Just fill in the blanks by using the SPSS output

Let’s fill in the values. You are reporting the degrees of freedom (df), the F value (F) and the Sig. value
(often referred to as the p value).
Once the blanks are full…

You have a sentence that looks very scientific but was actually very simple to produce.

“There was a significant effect of amount of sugar on words remembered at the p<.05 level for the three
conditions [F(2, 12) = 4.94, p = 0.027].”

3. Only if result of test was significant, report results of post hoc tests

In the previous chapter on interpretation, you learned that the significance value generated in a 1-Way
Between Subjects ANOVA doesn’t tell you everything. If you find a significant effect using this type of test,
you can conclude that there is a significant difference between some of the conditions in your experiment.
However, you will not know where this effect exists. The significant difference could be between any or all of
the conditions in your experiment. In the previous chapter, you learned that to determine where significance
exists you need to conduct a post hoc test to compare each condition with all other conditions. If you have
an IV with 3 levels, like the one in this example, you would need to conduct and report the results of a post
hoc test to report which conditions are significantly different from which other conditions.

Example

Because we have found a statistically significant result in this example, we needed to compute a post hoc
test. We selected the Tukey post hoc test. This test is designed to compare each of our conditions to every
other conditions. This test will compare the Sugar and No Sugar conditions. It will also compare the A little
sugar and No Sugar conditions. It will also compare the A Little Sugar and Sugar conditions. The results of
the Tukey post hoc must be reported if you find a significant effect for your overall ANOVA.

You can use the following template to report the results of your Tukey post hoc test. Just fill in the means
and standard deviation values for each condition. They are located in your Descriptives box.
If you used this template with our example, you would end up with a sentence that looks something like this.

“Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the sugar condition (M =
4.20, SD = 1.30) was significantly different than the no sugar condition (M = 2.20, SD = 0.84). However, the
a little sugar condition (M = 3.60, SD = 0.89) did not significantly differ from the sugar and no sugar
conditions.”

4. Report your results in words that people can understand

Since it might be hard for someone to figure out what that sentence means or how it relates to your
experiment, you want to briefly recap in words that people can understand. Try to imagine trying to explain
your results to someone who is not familiar with science. In one sentence, explain your results in easy to
understand language.

Example

You might write something like this for our example.

“Taken together, these results suggest that high levels of sugar really do have an effect on memory for
words. Specifically, our results suggest that when humans consume high levels of sugar, they remember
more words. However, it should be noted that sugar level must be high in order to see an effect. Medium
sugar levels do not appear to significantly increase word memory.”

This sentence is so much easier to understand than the scientific one with all of the numbers in it.

Let’s see how this looks all together

When you put the three main components together, results look something like this.

“A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of sugar on memory for words
in sugar, a little sugar and no sugar conditions. There was a significant effect of amount of sugar on words
remembered at the p<.05 level for the three conditions [F(2, 12) = 4.94, p = 0.027]. Post hoc comparisons
using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the sugar condition (M = 4.20, SD = 1.30) was
significantly different than the no sugar condition (M = 2.20, SD = 0.84). However, the a little sugar condition
(M = 3.60, SD = 0.89) did not significantly differ from the sugar and no sugar conditions. Taken together,
these results suggest that high levels of sugar really do have an effect on memory for words. Specifically,
our results suggest that when humans consume high levels of sugar, they remember more words. However,
it should be noted that sugar level must be high in order to see an effect. Medium sugar levels do not appear
to significantly increase word memory.”
ANOVA RESULTS
Univariate Tests of Significance, Effect Sizes, and Powers for avesoam (data in Imported from C:\Documents and Settings\Sir Elmer.COMPAQ\
Desktop\CDO workshop\URMATAN.xls) Sigma-restricted parameterization Effective hypothesis decomposition
SS Degr. of - Freedom MS F p Partial eta-squared Non-centrality Observed power (alpha=0.05)
Intercept 21056.45 1 21056.45 61345.04 0.000000 0.974612 61345.04 1.000000
Gender 3.56 1 3.56 10.37 0.001309 0.006445 10.37 0.895763
Error 548.51 1598 0.34

Descriptive Statistics (data in Imported from C:\Documents and Settings\Sir Elmer.COMPAQ\Desktop\CDO workshop\URMATAN.xls)
Level of - Factor N avesoam - Mean avesoam - Std.Dev. avesoam - Std.Err avesoam - -95.00% avesoam - +95.00%
Total 1600 3.647229 0.587585 0.014690 3.618416 3.676042
Gender 1 727 3.595552 0.614430 0.022788 3.550814 3.640291
Gender 2 873 3.690263 0.560988 0.018987 3.652999 3.727528

Univariate Tests of Significance, Effect Sizes, and Powers for avesoam (data in Imported from C:\Documents and Settings\Sir Elmer.COMPAQ\
Desktop\CDO workshop\URMATAN.xls) Sigma-restricted parameterization Effective hypothesis decomposition
SS Degr. of - Freedom MS F p Partial eta-squared Non-centrality Observed power (alpha=0.05)
Intercept 19666.84 1 19666.84 58143.04 0.000000 0.973268 58143.04 1.000000
HEAF 11.88 2 5.94 17.56 0.000000 0.021522 35.13 0.999842
Error 540.18 1597 0.34

Descriptive Statistics (data in Imported from C:\Documents and Settings\Sir Elmer.COMPAQ\Desktop\CDO workshop\URMATAN.xls)
 Level of - Factor N avesoam - Mean avesoam - Std.Dev. avesoam - Std.Err avesoam - -95.00% avesoam - +95.00%
Total 1600 3.647229 0.587585 0.014690 3.618416 3.676042
HEAF 1 352 3.565057 0.658233 0.035084 3.496056 3.634058
HEAF 2 665 3.591629 0.579579 0.022475 3.547498 3.635760
HEAF 3 583 3.760263 0.532550 0.022056 3.716944 3.803582

Bonferroni test; variable avesoam (data in Imported from C:\Documents and Settings\Sir Elmer.COMPAQ\Desktop\CDO workshop\URMATAN.xls)
Probabilities for Post Hoc Tests Error: Between MS = .33825, df = 1597.0
HEAF {1} - 3.5651 {2} - 3.5916 {3} - 3.7603
1 1 1.000000 0.000002
2 2 1.000000 0.000001
3 3 0.000002 0.000001

Univariate Tests of Significance, Effect Sizes, and Powers for avesoam (data in Imported from C:\Documents and Settings\Sir Elmer.COMPAQ\
Desktop\CDO workshop\URMATAN.xls) Sigma-restricted parameterization Effective hypothesis decomposition
SS Degr. of - Freedom MS F p Partial eta-squared Non-centrality Observed power (alpha=0.05)
Intercept 19182.80 1 19182.80 56843.42 0.000000 0.972673 56843.42 1.000000
HEAM 13.13 2 6.57 19.45 0.000000 0.023784 38.91 0.999954
Error 538.94 1597 0.34

Descriptive Statistics (data in Imported from C:\Documents and Settings\Sir Elmer.COMPAQ\Desktop\CDO workshop\URMATAN.xls)
Level of - Factor N avesoam - Mean avesoam - Std.Dev. avesoam - Std.Err avesoam - -95.00% avesoam - +95.00%
Total 1600 3.647229 0.587585 0.014690 3.618416 3.676042
HEAM 1 334 3.501996 0.630016 0.034473 3.434184 3.569808
HEAM 2 683 3.632162 0.599798 0.022951 3.587100 3.677224
HEAM 3 583 3.748085 0.526622 0.021810 3.705248 3.790921

Bonferroni test; variable avesoam (data in Imported from C:\Documents and Settings\Sir Elmer.COMPAQ\Desktop\CDO workshop\URMATAN.xls)
Probabilities for Post Hoc Tests Error: Between MS = .33747, df = 1597.0
HEAM {1} - 3.5020 {2} - 3.6322 {3} - 3.7481
1 1 0.002429 0.000000
2 2 0.002429 0.001239
3 3 0.000000 0.001239

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations
Variable MALE FEMALE
M SD M SD
Social-Oriented Achievement Motivation 3.59 .61 3.69 .56
n= 727 n= 873

Table 1 summarizes the basic statistics for these variables. ANOVA was carried out to compare male and female students in
terms of social-oriented achievement motivation. Results show that there was a significant main effect of gender , F (1, 1598) =
10.37, p<.01, η2 =.006, indicating that female students endorse higher levels of social-oriented achievement motivation than males.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations
Variable HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT (FATHER)
Elementary High School College
Social-Oriented Achievement M SD M SD M SD
Motivation 3.56b .65 3.59b .57 3.76a .53
n=352 n =665 n= 583
Note: Means in the same row that do not share the same subscripts differ at
p < .008 in the post hoc comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment.

ANOVA was carried out to compare the endorsement of social-oriented achievement motivation (SOAM) of students

according to their father’s highest educational attainment. Results show that there was a significant main effect of father’s highest

educational attainment, F (2, 1597) = 17.56, p<.001, η2 =.021, indicating that students whose fathers were college graduates reported

the highest level of social-oriented achievement motivation. Post hoc analysis using Bonferonni adjusted significance level of .008

(.05 divided by 6 –the number of pair-wise comparisons) shows that students whose fathers were elementary and high school

graduates did not differ significantly in SOAM.

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations
Variable HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT (MOTHER)
Elementary High School College
Social-Oriented Achievement M SD M SD M SD
Motivation 3.5c .63 3.6b .59 3.74a .53
n=334 n = 683 n = 583
Note: Means in the same row that do not share the same subscripts differ at
p < .008 in the post hoc comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment.

ANOVA shows that there was a significant main effect of mother’s highest educational attainment, F (2, 1597) = 19.45,

p<.001, η2 =.023, indicating that students whose mothers were college graduates reported the highest level of social-oriented

achievement motivation. Post hoc analysis revealed that they significantly differ compared to students whose mothers were high

school and elementary graduates, who also showed significant difference with one another.