SYNTAX TEXT

UNIANOVA Post BY Group WITH Pre

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/INTERCEPT=INCLUDE
/PLOT=PROFILE(Group)
/EMMEANS=TABLES(OVERALL) WITH(Pre=MEAN)
/EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) WITH(Pre=MEAN) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)
/PRINT=ETASQ HOMOGENEITY DESCRIPTIVE
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/DESIGN=Group*Pre Pre Group.
3.2 Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) Results

3.2.1 Descriptive Statistics

Provide descriptive statistics for the pre-test scores of both the intervention and control groups.

Table XXX Descriptive Statistics for Pre-Test & Post-Test scores of SEFT among Intervention
and Control Group

Time Group N Mean SD

Pre-Test Interventio 10 10.5 1.26
n
Control 10 9.6 .96
Post-Test Interventio 10
n
Control 10

3.2.2 Homogeneity Test

Check for homogeneity of regression slopes before proceeding with ANCOVA.

To evaluate the assumption of homogeneity of variances, Levene's test was performed to

examine the equality of variances across groups. The results of the Levene's test revealed an F
statistic of 1.134 with degrees of freedom (1, 18), yielding a p-value of 0.301. Given a p-value of
0.301, we fail to reject the null hypothesis, indicating that there is no significant evidence of
unequal variances among the groups
3.2.3 ANCOVA Results

Present the results of the ANCOVA analysis, including main effects and interactions.

Table XXX: ANCOVA Results for anxiety reduction after adjust pre-test

Partial
Variable SS df MS F P-value Eta
Squared
Group
.733 1 .733 2.007 .176 .111
(Between)
Pre-Test 15.610 1 15.610 42.735 .000 .728
Group*Pretes
1.446 1 1.446 3.958 .064 .198
t
Error
Total

Main Effect of Group (Between):

The main effect of Group assesses the overall impact of the intervention on anxiety reduction,
specifically examining differences between the intervention and control groups. In this analysis,
the result indicates that these group differences are not statistically significant (F(1, df) = 2.007,
p = .176). The partial eta squared of .111 suggests that approximately 11.1% of the variability in
anxiety reduction can be attributed to the Group variable. In simpler terms, the type of
intervention (or lack thereof) does not appear to be a significant predictor of overall anxiety
reduction in this study. This finding emphasizes that, on average, anxiety reduction does not
differ significantly between the intervention and control groups.

Main Effect of Pre-Test:

The main effect of the covariate Pre-Test examines the influence of participants' initial anxiety
levels on the overall anxiety reduction. The result is highly significant (F(1, df) = 42.735, p
< .001), indicating that pre-test scores play a substantial role in predicting anxiety reduction. The
large partial eta squared of .728 signifies that a remarkable 72.8% of the variability in anxiety
reduction can be explained by participants' initial anxiety levels. This underscores the importance
of considering individuals' baseline anxiety levels when evaluating the effects of the
intervention. Essentially, individuals with different pre-test anxiety levels are likely to experience
different levels of anxiety reduction, and this should be considered when interpreting the overall
impact of the intervention.

Interaction Effect (Group*Pretest):

The interaction effect between Group and Pre-Test examines whether the relationship between
the type of intervention and anxiety reduction is influenced by participants' pre-test scores. While
this interaction effect is not statistically significant, it approaches significance (F(1, df) = 3.958,
p = .064). The partial eta squared of .198 indicates that approximately 19.8% of the variability in
anxiety reduction can be attributed to the interaction between Group and Pre-Test. While the p-
value is slightly above the conventional threshold of .05, suggesting caution in interpretation,
researchers may find it worthwhile to explore this further, especially considering the sizable
proportion of variability explained by the interaction. This implies that the impact of the
intervention on anxiety reduction may be influenced by participants' initial anxiety levels, even
though the statistical significance is not firmly established. Researchers may want to delve
deeper into the context of the study, considering potential practical or clinical implications of this
trend.

3.2.4 Post-Hoc Analysis

The post-hoc analysis, outlined in Table 3, emphasizes the comparative impact of the
intervention and control groups on anxiety reduction. The mean difference is statistically
significant (p = .004), with the intervention group exhibiting a mean anxiety reduction of 0.900
units more than the control group (SE = 0.270). This points to a meaningful and confident
advantage for the intervention in reducing anxiety levels among pre-cardiac catheterization
patients.
Table 3: Post-Hoc Comparisons for Anxiety Reduction

Comparison Mean SE P-value 95% CI

difference Lower Upper
bound Bound
Intervention .900 .270 .004 .327 1.473
vs Control

3.2.5 Effect Size

Referring to Table XXX, the effect size measures reveal a substantial impact of the Spiritual
Freedom Technique (SEFT) on anxiety reduction.

The contrast between the intervention and control groups demonstrates a significant effect, with
a partial eta squared (η²) of 0.409. This indicates that approximately 40.9% of the variability in
anxiety reduction can be attributed to the SEFT intervention, underscoring its significant role in
promoting anxiety reduction.

Further supporting this, the mean square (MS) for the contrast is 4.050, and the associated F-ratio
is 11.088, both of which are statistically significant (p = .004). These findings affirm the
robustness of the observed effect, emphasizing the significant contribution of SEFT to anxiety
reduction.

Table XXX Effect Size SEFT on anxiety

SS df Mean F p-value Partial

Square Eta
Squared
Contrast 4.050 1 4.050 11.088 .004 .409
Error 5.844 16 .365