T2) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on the second factor. Second, after checking the interrater-reliability for the three different strength ratings, by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; Shrout and Fleiss 1979), we compared both groups referred to their average strength in the BDORT (after inducing their anxiety) for both times of measurement. The data were
analyzed using a 2 (group: selleck kinase inhibitor experimental group vs. control group) Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical × 2 (time of measurement: T1 vs. T2) ANOVA with repeated measures on the second factor. Third, we compared the experimental group and the control group in relation to the data in the STAI-G, divided into STAI-G-State Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical and STAI-G-Trait for both times of measurement. Hence, data were analyzed using two 2 (group: experimental group vs. control group) × 2 (time of measurement: T1 vs. T2) ANOVAs with repeated measures on the second factor. Results Intensity of anxiety The ANOVA did not reveal an main effect for time of measurement (F(1, 47) = 3844) and for group (F(1, 47) = 0.472). However, there was a significant interaction between time of measurement and
group (F(1, 47) = 9.26, P < 0.008, η² = 0.16). For T1, the mean values of anxiety did not differ significantly between both groups. Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical However, the interaction indicated that the mean values of anxiety decreased in the experimental group from the first to Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the second time of measurement and the mean values of anxiety in the anxiety condition were as far as possible unchanged (see Fig. Fig.22). Figure 2 Likert Scale (LS) for the intensity of anxiety in the experimental group (EG) and the control group (CG) for time of measurement 1 (T1) and time of measurement 2 (T2). Physical task First, the interrater-reliability coefficients were acceptable
for all judges (ranging from 0.90 to 0.96 and averaging 0.93) for both times of measurement. The subsequent 2 (group: experimental group vs. control group) × 2 (time of measurement: Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical T1 vs. T2) ANOVA yields a main effect for time of measurement (F(1, 48) = 13.44, P < 0.001, η² = 0.21) but not for group (F(1, 48) = 3.20). In addition, we found a significant interaction between group and time of measurement (F(1, 48) = 12.96, P < 0.001, η² = 0.21). Figure Figure33 shows that the mean data for strength (after the anxiety induction) increased in the experimental group from T1 to T2 and the strength in the control group was as far as possible unchanged from T1 to T2. Figure Phosphatidylinositol diacylglycerol-lyase 3 Mean strength rating and standard errors for the emotion anxiety in the experimental group (EG) and in the control group (CG) for time of measurement 1 (T1) and time of measurement 2 (T2). STAI-G-State The ANOVA revealed no significant main effect for group (F(1, 48) = 1.74) or for time of measurement (F(1, 48) = 0.54). However, we found a significant interaction between group and time of measurement (F(1, 48) = 5.73, P < 0.022).
Related posts:
- 31 Mpa (Graphs (Graphs22 and and3),3), Group II = 7 37 Mpa (Gra
- Here, the first principal component explained 59% of the variance
- JNJ-26481585 HDAC inhibitor Western blot analysis for immunoblot analysis were OSU-HDAC42-treated lysed cells
- 3A and 3B), the Student’s t test with a 95% confidence interval
- Group living lengthened the duration of contests, so that even in