SPSS Analysis of the Performance of Two Groups

SPSS Output Interpretation

SPSS Output Intrpretation

SPSS Output Summary-Use the study information and SPSS output file provided to answer the questions listed.

Study Description: • Participants were assigned to a control group or a training group. The training group received 1 hour of training every day for one week. During the training, participants learned various techniques for decreasing their stress levels. All participants were given a life stress test to determine their current level of life stress. Scores on the test were labeled as either high or low. After a week, all participants were given a puzzle to put together in a stressful environment (e.g., loud noises, bright lights, etc.). The amount of the puzzle completed in the time frame of 5 minutes was measured according to the number of pieces completed (there were 10 pieces to the puzzle). It was expected that the training group would have different scores on the test than the control group. In addition, those who had high life stress scores were expected to perform differently than those who had low life stress scores. Lastly, those who received training and had high stress scores were expected to perform differently than those who did not receive training and had low stress scores.

The literature suggests that people can learn to better manage their everyday stress by learning and practicing stress-management regimens and stress-reduction processes. The current study investigated the influence of stress reduction training on the puzzle-solving abilities of people living with different levels of life stress. Study participants were grouped into a control group (n=15) and a treatment group (n=15), will all participants receiving training in techniques that can be used to reduce stress levels. Baseline data was collected through the administration of a life stress test to all participants. Following a period of a week, all 30 participants were required to solve a 10-piece puzzle in a stressful environment within a 5-minute period. With only 30 participants total, the sample size was small in this study.

The independent variables included the various life stress levels experienced and perceived by the research participants and the hour-long training in stress reduction they received. The quantitative data consisted of the time participants took to complete the puzzle and the number of pieces of the puzzle assembled.

The research question and the hypotheses are as follows.

RQ1: What influence does stress reduction training have on the performance of people living with different levels of life stress?

H0: stress reduction training does not have an influence on the performance of study participants engaged in a simple puzzle-solving task under stressful conditions

H1: stress reduction training does influence the performance of study participants engaged in a simple puzzle-solving task under stressful conditions

The data were analyzed through the use of SPSS, which included the provision of descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics provide measures of central tendency and variability, which provide information about the shape of the distribution for the interval and ratio variables. The skewness and kurtosis of a distribution can provide a graphic representation of data in a frequency distribution. Skewness reveals the amount and direction of skew, which is the departure from horizontal symmetry, and kurtosis reveals how tall and sharp the central peak of the curve is when compared to a standard bell-shaped or "normal" curve. The kurtosis in this analysis indicates heavy tails in the distribution, such that the performance scores seem to indicate either very rapid or quite slow puzzle solving behavior. It is important to note that measures of shape (skewness and kurtosis) are fairly unreliable estimators of parameters when samples are small, as they are in this study ("SAS," 2006). The mean performance scores for study participants who received stress reduction training were 6.20 and 7.60 for the high stress group and the low stress group, with standard deviations (SD) at 1.304 and 1.075, respectively. The mean scores for study participants in the control group were 2.50 and 2.80 for the high stress group and the low stress groups, with standard deviations (SD) at .972 and .837, respectively. Minimal difference was found for the effect of training and life stress. Participants with high stress levels had mean performance scores of 2.50 and 6.20 for the control group and the treatment group, respectively, while participants with low stress levels had mean scores of 2.80 and 7.60 for the control group and the treatment group respectively. Mean performance scores for training alone was 2.65 for the control group and 6.90 for the treatment group. Mean performance scores for life stress alone was 4.35 for the control and 5.20 for the treatment group.

A factorial ANOVA was conducted since two or more categorical independent variables and a single normally distributed interval dependent variable (means of performance scores on the puzzle-solving test) were observed (Lane, 2007).

These results of the ANOVA indicate that the overall model is statistically significant (F = 48.949, p = 0.00). The variable training is also statistically significant (F = 54.682, p = 0.000). However, the variable lifestre is not statistically significant (F = 4.394, p = .046), nor is the interaction between training and lifestre is not statistically significant (F = 1.840, p = .187). Results of the ANOVA show the mean square for training at 120.4 (f =109.85, p < .05), for life stress at 4.82 (f = 4.39, p < .05), and for training and life stress at 2.02 (f = 1.84, p < .05). A post-hoc test was not performed for Training or for Life Stress because there were fewer than three groups ("UCLA," 2010).