Personal Data Sets Correlations
Michael Nethercutt, 2017 Subjects = Students at ECU Sex Spirituality Receptivity to Pseudo-Profound Bullshit http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf Bullshit Receptivity and Politics
Correlations Sex Spirit PPBS 1 .168** .198** .005 .001 278 277 Sex Spirit PPBS 1 = Male 2 = Female Pearson Correlation 1 .168** .198** Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .001 N 278 277 Spirituality .545** .000 280
Statistics Sex Spirit PPBS Male Variance 1.977 .729 Skewness .122 .386 Kurtosis -.989 .074 Female 1.792 .776 -.196 -.181 -.930 -.223
Group Statistics Sex N Mean Std. Deviation Spirit Male 120 3.2437 1.40623 Female 157 3.7127 1.33870 PPBS 121 2.5484 .85359 156 2.9003 .88070
Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means t df Sig. (2- tailed) Cohen’s d Spirituality 2.827 275 .005 .34 PPBS 3.343 .001 .40 Notice that the p values are identical to what they were for the point biserial correlations.
Jennifer Hodgson, 2015 All participants reported experiencing a workplace injury. WORK STATUS (1 = in work; 2 = out of work). LOST TIME (number of days missed work since reported work-related injury)
From a Normal Population? LostTime Working Mean 48.60 Median 5.00 Variance 20148.550 Std. Deviation 141.946 Skewness 5.705 Kurtosis 35.890 Not 138.71 77.00 17995.096 134.146 .524 -1.408
Erin Ezell, 2015 IntroQ data set Gender of Student (1 = female, 2 = male) Eye Color (brown or not brown) Height of ideal mate (inches) Statophobia (11 point scale, 0 to 10)