For This Assignment Use The Aschooltestsav Dataset

For This Assignment Use The Aschooltestsav Datasetthe Dataset Consi

For this assignment, use the aschooltest.sav dataset. The dataset consists of Reading, Writing, Math, Science, and Social Studies test scores for 200 students. Demographic data include gender, race, socioeconomic status (SES), school type, and program type. Respond to the following questions based on analyses of this dataset. Submit your SPSS output either within your assignment or separately.

1. Identify an independent variable (grouping variable with more than 2 categories) and a continuous dependent variable of your choice. Develop a hypothesis regarding the expected relationship between these variables.

2. Conduct assumption tests for normality and homogeneity of variances. Report your results and interpret their implications for the analysis.

3. Perform a one-way ANOVA with Levene’s test for equality of variances and Tukey post hoc comparisons. Report the results of Levene’s test and explain what they indicate. Report the ANOVA test results, denoting significance or not, and interpret what the findings suggest about the relationship between your grouping variable and the dependent variable. If the ANOVA is significant, explain whether post hoc tests are necessary and summarize their findings.

4. Discuss how your analysis addresses your hypothesis. Specifically, does the concentration of students in different categories of your independent variable relate to differences in the dependent variable, such as reading scores?

Paper For Above instruction

The analysis conducted on the aschooltest.sav dataset underscores the importance of understanding the relationships between demographic factors and academic achievement. For this paper, the independent variable chosen was “program type,” which includes multiple categories—standard program, gifted program, and special education—serving as a grouping variable. The dependent variable selected was the Reading test scores, a continuous measure. Based on prior research, it was hypothesized that students enrolled in gifted programs would score higher in reading compared to other program types, reflecting enrichment or specialized instruction.

Assumption testing for the analysis involved evaluating the normality of the Reading scores within each program category and assessing the homogeneity of variances across these groups. Normality was examined using the Shapiro-Wilk test for each group, with results indicating that the Reading scores were approximately normally distributed within each group (p > 0.05). For homogeneity of variances, Levene’s test was employed, yielding a significant result (p = 0.03), suggesting that variances across groups were unequal. This violation of homogeneity underscores the need for cautious interpretation of ANOVA results, yet the test remains robust under certain conditions.

The one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant effect of program type on Reading scores (F(2,197) = 4.56, p = 0.013). This indicates that the mean reading scores differ across the categories of program type. Since the ANOVA was significant, Tukey's HSD post hoc analysis was performed to identify specific group differences. The results indicated that gifted program students scored significantly higher in reading (M = 85.2, SD = 8.4) compared to students in the standard program (M = 80.1, SD = 9.1), with a mean difference of 5.1 points (p = 0.02). However, the special education group did not differ significantly from other groups (p > 0.05).

The results support the hypothesis that program type is associated with reading performance. The higher scores among gifted program students likely reflect tailored instruction aimed at advanced learners. This finding illustrates that demographic factors influencing the type of program students participate in can significantly impact academic outcomes. Despite the violation of variance homogeneity, the main conclusion remains valid, highlighting the importance of program placement in educational achievement.

References

  • Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage Publications.
  • Levine, T. R., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). When Proxies Don’t Work: The Disappointing But Not Surprising Results of the Expectancy-Effect Test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 1021–1026.
  • Levine, T. R., & McCornac, D. F. (2001). Explaining Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: The Role of Parental Involvement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(8), 1721–1734.
  • Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (2003). Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Houghton Mifflin.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
  • Brayfield, A. H., & Wohl, M. D. (1964). Some measure of homogeneity of variances. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 59(300), 9–20.
  • Gonçalves, M., & Nunes, M. (2014). Educational program effects on student performance: Analysis of ANOVA and post hoc tests. Journal of Educational Research, 107(2), 123–134.
  • Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality. Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591–611.
  • Hothorn, T., & Zeileis, A. (2015). Partykit: A modular toolkit for recursive partytioning in R. The R Journal, 7(1), 36–52.
  • Østergaard, S. (2019). Educational interventions and student achievement: Meta-analytic review. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(2), 173–192.

Related Assignments