Exercise:

Setup: A study was carried-out on decreasing the amount of time it takes subjects to cognitively process and identify ambiguous objects. Four time-points were used, with T1 being a baseline assessment. T2, \(\mathrm{T} 3, \mathrm{~T} 4\) are 1 -week follow-up periods (to 3 -weeks). A check-sheet intervention was constructed using an \(8 " \times 11 "\) sheet of paper, which was to act a tool for subjects to help subjects make sense of the ambiguous objects ( 3 objects were shown at each timept, randomly selected from 20 objects). The check-sheet was introduced after T1 but before T2. Did the intervention help "speed" the processing of the ambiguous objects (DV is time in seconds)? The data are as follows:

Tasks: Enter your data in SPSS. Check your assumptions for Repeated Measures (just homogeneity of variance for each time point, and sphericity which is provided simply in the output of both programs). You will run the repeated measures analyses in SPSS GLM Repeated Measures. One of your \(F\) values should be \(F=6.22\). Once you have this finding, you will need to do some type of post-hoc test across conditions. For this assignment, request pair-wise comparisons within GLM, and click the box that reads "LSD"- which provides a paired t-test of the mean differences (even though it won't tell you that directly, that's what the test is providing). NO eta-square for this assignment.

Product - include a brief 1 -paragraph overview of the intended study with some possible hypothesis. Interpret the repeated measures assumptions. Provide your \(\mathrm{F}\) values and dfs per APA writing guidelines. Does the Greenhouse-Geisser \(\underline{P \text { value }}\) differ from the sphericity assumed value? Interpret the post-hoc tests. Include an appropriate graph. What can you conclude from all of this? Did the intervention have an effect?

Price: $9.75

Solution: The downloadable solution consists of 5 pages, 475 words and 6 charts.
Deliverable: Word Document