Analysing a nominal and scale variable

Part 4: Reporting

If we combine all the reporting bits from the example, the full report for this variable, might have looked something like:

A question of interest was how do students grade the course across the three locations. Students could give the course a grade from 0 (low) to 100 (high). The results are shown in Figure 1.

Example of a split histogram
Figure 1. Location vs Grade for course.

As can be seen Figure 1 the students in gave the course a higher grade than those in Haarlem and Rotterdam. The variation in Rotterdam was very high.

The one-way ANOVA showed that Location had significant large effect on how students evaluated the course, F(2, 45) = 8.04, p = .001, η² = .26. The Levene test showed that the variances across the three locations were significantly different, F(2, 45) = 4.68, p = .014. A Games-Howell post hoc analysis showed that there was a significant difference between Diemen (M = 74.62, SD = 14.54) and Haarlem (M = 51.95, SD = 19.43), p = .001, and also between Diemen and Rotterdam (M = 47.15, SD = 26.81), p = .010.

It appears that students in Diemen were relatively pleased with the course, but in Haarlem and Rotterdam a lot of students didn’t evaluate the course high. To investigate what might have caused this, a further look at the……….

Note the final paragraph explains the some-what technical results into more understandable English, something many readers would often appreciate.

Nominal vs Scale

Google adds