This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.
Data

Data Screening

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.

Any subject. Any type of essay. We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.

GET YOUR PRICE

writers online

Data Screening

The first step of the data screening process was to check for missing data. Kang (2013) says that missing data—no matter the amount—can present various problems. It may reduce statistical power (the probability that a test will reject a false null hypothesis); the missing data can cause estimation bias on the parameters, and can also reduce sample representativeness. The only piece of data missing in the data set was the Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale value for identifying and understanding (ESES_Identifying) for participant number 205. This missing data had a significant effect on the total score on the ESES. Therefore, the best thing to do was to delete the entire record.

Before the record was deleted, the sample size was 232. The resultant sample size after the deletion was 231. The data set had two types of demographic variables: gender and age; however, this analysis will use only gender as the demographic variable because it is a grouping variable grouped into two (1 – male, 2 – female) and thus it can be a perfect variable for a parametric test after proving that the data is parametric using Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests of normality. If the test proves normality, the data can be treated as parametric (Cummiskey et al., 2012). If the Shapiro-Wilk significance value is larger than 0.05, the data is considered normal (Bakker & Wicherts, 2014); if the value is below 0.05, there is a significant deviation of the data from the normal distribution (Macdonald, 1999; Wheelan, 2013). Similarly, the significance values of the KS test indicate normality if they are greater than 0.05 (Ghahari et al., 2017). The following table shows the results of the normality test.

Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page

 

 

Table 1 Test of Normality

Tests of Normalityb,d,e

Gender

Kolmogorov-Smirnova

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic

df

Sig.

Statistic

df

Sig.

Mean Mach score

Man

.111

100

.074

.974

100

.044

Woman

.083

130

.084

.987

130

.234

Total score on the ESES

Man

.056

100

.200

.991

100

.717

Woman

.073

130

.087

.990

130

.445

Agreeableness

Man

.072

100

.200

.989

100

.615

Woman

.083

130

.082

.981

130

.072

All the significance values of the Shapiro-Wilk test are greater than 0.05 (an indication of a normal distribution) apart from men’s value for Mean Mach score which shows (p = 0.044) which shows a slight deviation from the normal distribution. All the KS test significance values are greater than 0.05; this means that the values are normally distributed. Therefore, the data can be considered parametric and parametric tests can be used to analyze the data. See Appendix section for further proof of normality by use of histograms and box plots. The distributions in the histograms are bell-shaped.

 

Table 2 Homogeneity of Variances

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic

df1

df2

Sig.

Total score on the ESES

Based on Mean

.562

1

228

.454

Mean Mach score

Based on Mean

.907

1

228

.342

Agreeableness

Based on Mean

.134

1

228

.715

Table 2 shows the homogeneity of variances based on the mean. In this table, our primary concern is the significance value: if the significance value is greater than 0.05 (p>0.05), the group variances are considered equal (homogeneity of variances); however, if p<0.05, homogeneity of variances assumption has been violated (Lee, 2010; Noguchi & Gel, 2010). For all three variables, the assumption of homogeneity of variance has been confirmed (Tyrell, 2008).

Descriptive Statistics

These are the descriptive statistics of EI, Mach, and agreeableness presented on a summary table.

Table 3 Mean (SD) scores for Mach, EI, and agreeableness

Mean (SD)

All

Men

Women

Mach

2.62 (0.42)

2.41 (0.45)

2.56 (0.37)

EI

110.07 (18.22)

107.38 (18.18)

112.14 (18.14)

Agreeableness

38.84 (5.57)

36.90 (5.30)

40.35 (5.34)

Inferential Statistics

In this section, the hypothesis testing will be performed. There are three hypotheses in total and each of the hypotheses will use a different test statistic. However, in all the three hypothesis tests, a common level of significance will be used and, in this case, α = 0.05 will be used. The level of significance will determine whether the hypothesis will be rejected or upheld (Sun et al., 2010). The tests will yield significance values (also known as p-values). The general rule of thumb is that, if the p-value is smaller than the level of significance, the null hypothesis is rejected; otherwise, the null hypothesis is upheld (Wheelan, 2013; Wasserman, 2013; Tyrell, 2008). The α = 0.05 does not only help in determining whether to reject or uphold the null hypothesis but also helps in restricting the possibility of rejecting a true null hypothesis (Type I error) to only 5% (Schumm et al., 2013). Furthermore, α = 0.05 helps establish statistically significant differences such that a p-value of less than 0.05 indicates statistically significant differences (Wheelan, 2013).

H1a: There will be significant group differences between men and women on emotional intelligence.

An Independent sample t-test will be used to analyze this hypothesis (Warner, 2012). Also known as the two-sample t-test, it is an inferential test-statistic that helps researchers to determine whether there are statistically significant differences between the means of two groups that are unrelated. According to Yildirim (2012), to conduct a two-sample t-test, the following conditions must be met: there must be an independent categorical variable having two groups or levels and a continuous dependent variable. In this case, the independent categorical variable is gender (1 – male, 2 – female), and the continuous dependent variable is emotional intelligence. The groups are unrelated and paired as promised, meaning that it is not possible for a member of one group to be a member of the other groups at the same time. For example, one can either be male or female and not both.

The following assumptions have to be made during an independent sample t-test: the dependent variable is normally distributed and homogeneity of variance. Table 1 confirms normal distribution and Table 2 confirms homogeneity of variance. Unequal variances can affect the rate of Type I error (Macdonald, 1999; “Assumptions in Parametric Tests,” 2019). Table 4 below shows the results of the two-sample t-test.

Table 4 Independent Sample T-Test

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Total score on the ESES

Equal variances assumed

-1.970

228

.050

Equal variances not assumed

-1.970

212.847

.050

Mean Mach score

Equal variances assumed

2.583

228

.010

Equal variances not assumed

2.535

195.891

.012

There will be no significant group differences between men (M=117.38, SD=18.18) and women (M=112.14, SD=18.14) on emotional intelligence, t(228)= -1.970, p = 0.050.

H1b: There will be significant group differences between men and women on Mach.

Based on the results of Table 4, it can be concluded that there will be significant group differences between men (M=2.71, SD=0.45) and women (M=2.56, SD=0.39) on mean Mach score, t(228)= 2.583, p = 0.010.

H2a: There will be an inverse correlation between emotional intelligence and Mach.

For H2a and H2b the test statistic that will be used will be Pearson’s correlation because the main agenda is to determine the strength and direction of the relationship between emotional intelligence, Mach, and agreeableness. As much as α = 0.05 can be used to reject or uphold a hypothesis statement in a Pearson’s correlation, it is the coefficient of correlation (r) that plays the major role. The correlation coefficient ranges from +1 (perfect positive correlation) through 0 to -1 (perfect negative correlation) (-1≤r≤+1). Generally, a correlation coefficient of 0.1-0.29 signifies a very weak correlation; 0.30-0.49 signifies a weak correlation; 0.50-0.69 signifies a moderate correlation, and a strong correlation is that of r=0.70 and above. r = 0 means that there is no correlation. Positive correlations are direct correlations (both variables are moving in the same direction; an increase in one variable, leads to an increase in another variable) while negative correlations are inverse correlations (an increase in one variable leads to a decrease in another variable) (Warner, 2013; Olive, 2017). Table 5 shows the correlations.

Table 5 Correlations

Correlations

Mean Mach score

Agreeableness

Total score on the ESES

Mean Mach score

Pearson Correlation

1

-.249**

-.249**

Agreeableness

Pearson Correlation

-.249**

1

.415**

Total score on the ESES

Pearson Correlation

-.249**

.415**

1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The correlation between emotional intelligence and Mach is -.249**. This is a weak negative correlation. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is an inverse correlation between emotional intelligence and Mach. Because the significance values in all the correlations is p<0.01, the hypothesis stays as it is. An increase in emotional intelligence’ leads to a decrease in Mach and an increase in Mach, leads to a decrease in emotional intelligence.

H2b: There will be inverse correlations between agreeableness and Mach.

According to Table 5, the correlation between agreeableness and Mach is -.249**. Therefore, it can be concluded that the correlation between agreeableness and Mach is inverse. An increase in agreeableness, leads to a decrease in Mach; an increase in Mach, leads to a decrease in agreeableness.

H3: Emotional intelligence will show significant contributions to Mach, after controlling for agreeableness as a covariate.

In this hypothesis, the best statistical test is a linear multiple regression. After correlation, the next step is usually to perform a linear regression (Wheelan, 2013). Linear regression is used in predicting the value of one variable using other variables (Warner, 2012). The variable to be predicted is called the outcome variable (dependent variable); the variable used in prediction is called the predictor variable (independent variable) (Tyrell, 2008). In this case, the outcome variable is Mach and the predictor variables are emotional intelligence and agreeableness. The covariate variable is agreeableness; a covariate variable is a measurable variable considered to be correlated with the dependent variable. In this case, the covariate variable acts as a complementary independent variable. Table 6 is the linear regression table.

Multiple regression also uses α = 0.05 to determine the fate of the hypothesis statement (Strizhitskaya, 2019). When p<0.05, the regression model can statistically significantly predict the outcome variable; in other words, the model is a good fit for the data (Olive, 2017).

Table 6 Emotional Intelligence and Agreeableness Predictors of Mach

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t

Sig.

B (SE)

Beta

1

(Constant)

3.584 (.207)

17.291

.000

Total score on the ESES

-.004 (.002)

-.176

-2.537

.012

Agreeableness

-.013 (.005)

-.176

-2.535

.012

  1. Dependent Variable: Mean Mach score

The multiple regression equation is as follows:

 

The fact that the p-value is less than α = 0.05 on all occasions; therefore, it can be concluded that the regression model can statistically significantly predict the outcome variable and the model is a good fit for the data.

 

Table 7 Model Summary

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

1

.297a

.088

.080

  1. Predictors: (Constant), Agreeableness, Total score on the ESES

The r is .297—moderate correlation. Even though the regression model can statistically significantly predict the outcome variable, only 8.8% of the total variation in Mach can be explained by both emotional intelligence and agreeableness.

Conclusion

The mean Mach score of men and women are significantly different. The inverse correlation between emotional intelligence and Mach means that when one’s emotional intelligence rises, their Mach score decreases; inversely, when one’s Mach score increases, their emotional intelligence drops. The inverse correlation between agreeableness and Mach means that when agreeableness increases, Mach score drops and vice versa. The regression models shows that the predictor variables (emotional intelligence and agreeableness) can statistically significantly (results are unlikely due to chance) predict Mach score and is hence a model fit (new data can be used to make similar conclusions).

 

 

References

Assumptions in Parametric Tests. (2019). Testing Statistical Assumptions in Research, 65-140. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119528388.ch4

Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2014). Outlier removal, sum scores, and the inflation of the type I error rate in independent samples t tests: The power of alternatives and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 19(3), 409-427. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000014

Cummiskey, K., Kuiper, S., & Sturdivant, R. (2012). Using Classroom Data to Teach Students about Data Cleaning and Testing Assumptions. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00354

Ghahari, S., Farhanghi, Z., & Gheytarani, B. (2017). The effectiveness of teaching positive psychology on dysfunctional attitudes and emotional self-regulation of withdrawing addicts. European Psychiatry, 41, S410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.01.345

Kang, H. (2013). The prevention and handling of the missing data. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 64(5), 402. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2013.64.5.402

Lee. (2010). A Monte Carlo Study of Seven Homogeneity of Variance Tests. Journal of Mathematics and Statistics, 6(3), 359-366. https://doi.org/10.3844/jmssp.2010.359.366

Macdonald, P. (1999). Power, Type I, and Type III Error Rates of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Tests. The Journal of Experimental Education, 67(4), 367-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220979909598489

Noguchi, K., & Gel, Y. R. (2010). Combination of Levene-type tests and a finite-intersection method for testing equality of variances against ordered alternatives. Journal of Nonparametric Statistics, 22(7), 897-913. https://doi.org/10.1080/10485251003698505

Olive, D. J. (2017). Multiple Linear Regression. Linear Regression, 17-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55252-1_2

Schumm, W. R., Pratt, K. K., Hartenstein, J. L., Jenkins, B. A., & Johnson, G. A. (2013). Determining statistical significance (alpha) and reporting statistical trends: controversies, issues, and facts1. Comprehensive Psychology, 2(1), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.2466/03.cp.2.10

Strizhitskaya, O. (2019). Perceived Stress and Psychological Well-Being: The Role of The Emotional Stability. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.02.02.18

Sun, S., Pan, W., & Wang, L. L. (2010). A comprehensive review of effect size reporting and interpreting practices in academic journals in education and psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 989-1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019507

Tyrrell, S. (2008). Intermediate Statistics for Dummies by Deborah Rumsey Intermediate Statistics for Dummies by Deborah Rumsey. MSOR Connections, 8(1), 34-38. https://doi.org/10.11120/msor.2008.08010034

Warner, R. M. (2012). Applied Statistics: From Bivariate Through Multivariate Techniques: From Bivariate Through Multivariate Techniques. SAGE.

Wasserman, L. (2013). All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference. Springer Science & Business Media.

Wheelan, C. (2013). Naked Statistics: Stripping the Dread from the Data. W. W. Norton & Company.

Yildirim, E. (2012). The Investigation of the Teacher Candidates’ Attitudes Towards Teaching Profession According to their Demographic Variables (The Sample of Maltepe University). Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2352-2355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.483

 

 

 

 

Appendix

Test of normality

 

Tests of Normalityb,d,e

Gender

Kolmogorov-Smirnova

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic

df

Sig.

Statistic

df

Sig.

Mean Mach score

Man

.111

100

.074

.974

100

.044

Woman

.083

130

.084

.987

130

.234

Total score on the ESES

Man

.056

100

.200

.991

100

.717

Woman

.073

130

.087

.990

130

.445

Agreeableness

Man

.072

100

.200

.989

100

.615

Woman

.083

130

.082

.981

130

.072

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

  1. Lilliefors Significance Correction
  2. Mean Mach score is constant when Gender = Other. It has been omitted.
  3. Total score on the ESES is constant when Gender = Other. It has been omitted.
  4. Agreeableness is constant when Gender = Other. It has been omitted.

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic

df1

df2

Sig.

Total score on the ESES

Based on Mean

.562

1

228

.454

Based on Median

.566

1

228

.453

Based on Median and with adjusted df

.566

1

223.493

.453

Based on trimmed mean

.572

1

228

.450

Mean Mach score

Based on Mean

.907

1

228

.342

Based on Median

.854

1

228

.356

Based on Median and with adjusted df

.854

1

219.614

.356

Based on trimmed mean

.861

1

228

.354

Agreeableness

Based on Mean

.134

1

228

.715

Based on Median

.137

1

228

.712

Based on Median and with adjusted df

.137

1

226.564

.712

Based on trimmed mean

.126

1

228

.723

 

Histograms

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Box Plots

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent Sample T-test

 

 

t-test for Equality of Means

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Total score on the ESES

Equal variances assumed

-1.970

228

.050

-4.75846

2.41489

-9.51683

-.00010

Equal variances not assumed

-1.970

212.847

.050

-4.75846

2.41569

-9.52021

.00329

Mean Mach score

Equal variances assumed

2.583

228

.010

.14201

.05498

.03368

.25034

Equal variances not assumed

2.535

195.891

.012

.14201

.05603

.03151

.25250

Correlations

Correlations

Mean Mach score

Agreeableness

Total score on the ESES

Mean Mach score

Pearson Correlation

1

-.249**

-.249**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

N

231

231

231

Agreeableness

Pearson Correlation

-.249**

1

.415**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

N

231

231

231

Total score on the ESES

Pearson Correlation

-.249**

.415**

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

N

231

231

231

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Multiple Linear Regression

 

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t

Sig.

B

Std. Error

Beta

1

(Constant)

3.584

.207

17.291

.000

Total score on the ESES

-.004

.002

-.176

-2.537

.012

Agreeableness

-.013

.005

-.176

-2.535

.012

  1. Dependent Variable: Mean Mach score

 

Model Summary

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

.297a

.088

.080

.40055

  1. Predictors: (Constant), Agreeableness, Total score on the ESES

 

 

 

 

  Remember! This is just a sample.

Save time and get your custom paper from our expert writers

 Get started in just 3 minutes
 Sit back relax and leave the writing to us
 Sources and citations are provided
 100% Plagiarism free
error: Content is protected !!
×
Hi, my name is Jenn 👋

In case you can’t find a sample example, our professional writers are ready to help you with writing your own paper. All you need to do is fill out a short form and submit an order

Check Out the Form
Need Help?
Dont be shy to ask