Table of Contents
ABSTRACT
The paper provides a practical report from an activity that was completed from a sample. There were two variables which include the mood induction and impulsivity dependent variable. The scores ranged from one to ten whereby the highest score of ten was regarded as high impulsivity. On the other hand, the induction procedure was characterized as either positive, negative or neutral (Fox & Fox, 2017). The independent variable under discussion were the gender, the age of the participants and the depressed and dyslexic participants. The analysis will use the anova statistical method. This is because it has the ability of performing means of at least 3 groups provided all the participants are within the same group and are highly correlated (Williams, 1959). The results shows that there is a correlation between dyslexia and negative mood induction.
METHODS
170 participants took part in the study. The research study measured the impulsivity of the participants together with their impulsiveness. The data set contained the functional impulsivity and dysfunctional impulsivity. The decision activities involved the process of sampling the information before coming up with a decision. This incorporated the potential conditions of task total points, number of picks, and the decreasing number of picks. The participants were then grouped based on their impulsivity scores. The data were then analyzed with the help of anova and multi-regression analysis.
RESULTS
Impulsivity and Mood Induction Procedure
| Anova: Single Factor | ||||||
| SUMMARY | ||||||
| Groups | Count | Sum | Average | Variance | ||
| FW correct (mood induction) | 170 | 1406 | 8.270588 | 2.50623 | ||
| DW correct (impulsivity) | 170 | 1258 | 7.4 | 2.67929 | ||
| ANOVA | ||||||
| Source of Variation | SS | df | MS | F | P-value | F crit |
| Between Groups | 64.42352941 | 1 | 64.42353 | 24.84747 | 9.93E-07 | 3.869118 |
| Within Groups | 876.3529412 | 338 | 2.59276 | |||
| Total | 940.7764706 | 339 |
FWnPick and Dwnpick
| Anova: Single Factor | ||||||
| SUMMARY | ||||||
| Groups | Count | Sum | Average | Variance | ||
| Fwnpick | 170 | 20279 | 119.2882 | 4546.408 | ||
| Dwnpick | 170 | 11824 | 69.55294 | 1388.521 | ||
| ANOVA | ||||||
| Source of Variation | SS | df | MS | F | P-value | F crit |
| Between Groups | 210256 | 1 | 210256 | 70.85375 | 1.11E-15 | 3.869118 |
| Within Groups | 1003003 | 338 | 2967.464 | |||
| Total | 1213259 | 339 |
The 170 participants showed that the average Fwnpick and Dwnpick for the participants was 119.2882 and 69.5529. F significance for the two variables was 70.85 with a p value of 1.11E-15.
FI-new, DI_new
| Anova: Single Factor | ||||||
| SUMMARY | ||||||
| Groups | Count | Sum | Average | Variance | ||
| FI_new | 170 | 5038 | 29.63529 | 32.42242 | ||
| DI-new | 170 | 4864 | 28.61176 | 20.48743 | ||
| ANOVA | ||||||
| Source of Variation | SS | df | MS | F | P-value | F crit |
| Between Groups | 89.04706 | 1 | 89.04706 | 3.365992 | 0.067434 | 3.869118 |
| Within Groups | 8941.765 | 338 | 26.45493 | |||
| Total | 9030.812 | 339 |
The 170 participants showed that the average FI_new and Di_new for the participants was 29.63529 and 28.61176. F significance for the two variables was 3.365992 with a p value of 0.067434
Value Point and Mood Induction
| t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means | ||
| Values Total Point | FW correct (mood induction) | |
| Mean | 1797.117647 | 8.270588235 |
| Variance | 320925.9624 | 2.506230421 |
| Observations | 170 | 170 |
| Pearson Correlation | 0.604509216 | |
| Hypothesized Mean Difference | 0 | |
| Df | 169 | |
| t Stat | 41.24092972 | |
| P(T<=t) one-tail | 1.97742E-90 | |
| t Critical one-tail | 1.653919942 | |
| P(T<=t) two-tail | 3.95484E-90 | |
| t Critical two-tail | 1.974100447 |
The 170 participants showed that the average t-test for value point and mood induction for the participants was 1797.117647 and 8.270588235 respectively. The t stat for the two variable is 41.24092972 with a p test value of 1.97742E-90
Value Point and Sensitivity
| t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means | ||
| Values Total Point | DW correct (impulsivity) | |
| Mean | 1797.117647 | 7.4 |
| Variance | 320925.9624 | 2.679289941 |
| Observations | 170 | 170 |
| Pearson Correlation | 0.796218147 | |
| Hypothesized Mean Difference | 0 | |
| Df | 169 | |
| t Stat | 41.28631992 | |
| P(T<=t) one-tail | 1.66959E-90 | |
| t Critical one-tail | 1.653919942 | |
| P(T<=t) two-tail | 3.33918E-90 | |
| t Critical two-tail | 1.974100447 |
The 170 participants showed that the average t-test for value point and DW correct for the participants was 1797.117647 and 7.4 respectively. The t stat for the two variable is 41.28631992 with a p test value of 1.66959E-90
DISCUSSION
Based on the results of anova on the impulsivity and mood induction procedure. Single factor anova was used in this kind of analysis because the analysis has the ability of performing the means of more than two groups (Chatterjee & Hadi, n.d.). The samples were the same in each group and were slightly related to each other. The average score for the mood induction is 8.270 which is perceived to be very high. On the other hand, the average DW correct (impulsivity) is 7.4 which is shows that the mood induction procedure for the sample was also positive. The participants on the mood induction and their respective inductivities were measured a couple of times for purposes of clarifying some changes to those interventions (Yan & Su, 2009). Additionally, the selected sample underwent more than a single condition and their respective responses were determined. Based on the FWnpick and the Dwnpick, a total of one hundred and seventy samples were selected for this. The average score for each measure was perceived to be 119.2882 for FwnPick while the average score for Dwnpick was 69.552 (Davino, Furno & Vistocco, n.d.). The F value for the two relationship is 70.85375 while the F value for the two variables were 1.11 * 10^-15. This significantly shows that the relationship between the two are significant. Based on the analysis between the FI_new and the DI_new, it shows that the two variables registered an average of 29.635 and 28.62 respectively. This is well similar to its F value of 3.36599 with a P value of 0.067434 (Fox & Fox, 2016). The two values shows that there is a huge significance because the value is slightly more than the conventional P value of 0.05.
The fact that Fi_new and Di_new had P valued of 0.067434 between the groups show that there is an improved normal distribution between the two variables (Koopmans, 1974). As a result, both the variables improved the distribution of data within the data set. This is not similar to the values total points. This is because, the p value that was obtained from the analysis is less than 0.05. For this reason, the null hypothesis of the research is rejected (Draper & Smith, 2014). The results therefore shows that the majority of the students has a positive mood induction procedures. As a result, they also recorded high impulsivity. This is because they managed to record an impulsivity that is more than 5, which shows high impulsivity. This is well represented by the anova because it best describes both the independent and the dependent variable (Qiu, 2005). The design that was used in the experiment has both the advantages and the disadvantages (Freund, Wilson & Sa, 2006). The analysis provided a more defined statistical power since it controlled all the studied factors that were used in the experiment.
The results demonstrated the Dickman Impulsivity Inventory. It managed to distinguish the two forms of impulsivity. The dysfunctional impulsivity is perceived to be the tendency of acting with less forethought compared to majority of people with the same ability in a situation when there is a likelihood of difficulty (Su, Yan & Tsai, 2012). On the other we have functional impulsivity which is perceived to be the act with a slight forethought when such conditions are optimal. Therefore, the report presented an exploratory analysis of the two impulsivities and described the psychometric features of the report. It was hypothesized that positive mood induction leads to a decreased degree of dyslexia and depression. On the other hand, a negative mood induction and high impulsivity leads to a reduced depression level and the dyslexia compared to the relative performance in the neutral mood condition. There is a relationship between the mood induction and gender in the 3 random groups. Additionally, there is a relationship between depression and negative mood induction (Osborne, n.d.). Finally, the results showed that there is a relationship between the impulsivity and mood induction. The total number of participants were one hundred and seventy. As such the test reduced the variability as similar power can well be performed by a smaller subjects. For this reason, every design received similar experimental treatments at a defined time.
- Chatterjee, S., & Hadi, A. Regression Analysis by Example.
- Draper, N., & Smith, H. (2014). Applied Regression Analysis. Somerset: Wiley.
- Fox, J., & Fox, J. (2016). Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models. Los Angeles: SAGE.
- Freund, R., Wilson, W., & Sa, P. (2006). Regression Analysis. Burlington: Elsevier.
- Yan, X., & Su, X. (2009). Linear regression analysis. Singapore: World Scientific.
- Davino, C., Furno, M., & Vistocco, D. Quantile regression.
- Fox, J., & Fox, J. (2017). Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models. Los Angeles: SAGE.
- Koopmans, T. (1974). Linear regression analysis of economics time series. Ann Arbor: Xerox University Microfilms.
- Osborne, J. Regression & linear modeling.
- Qiu, P. (2005). Image processing and jump regression analysis. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley.
- Su, X., Yan, X., & Tsai, C. (2012). Linear regression. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 4(3), 275-294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wics.1198
- Williams, E. (1959). Regression analysis. New York: Wiley.