results, discussion, apa editing, and defense
TRANSCRIPT
Results, Discussion, APA Editing, and Defense
By Dr. James Lani
Introduction/Literature Review
Methodology
Results
Discussion
Results
Quantitative
Quantitative ResultsClean data!!! (thanks Dr. Bob Newman)
Descriptive statistics (e.g., frequencies, percentages,means, and standard deviations)
Conduct analyses (e.g., examine assumptions, conductanalyses 1-by-1, interpret analyses, create meaningfultables and figures with descriptive labels and titles)
Summary (e.g., so readers have the highlights; clearsupport or non-support for the hypotheses)
Clean DataConduct descriptives to see if they’re reasonable.
Get rid of outliers (i.e., univariate and multivariate).
Impute missing data (e.g., impute means, multipleimputation).
Look at normality (and transform if necessary).
Descriptive StatisticsDescribes who you have and theaverage scores for the entire sample-for generalizability purposes.
It’s a good double check forconsistent numbers of observations.
Descriptive StatisticsFrequencies and Percentages for Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Variable n %
Gender
MaleFemale
Age
21-3031-3940-4950 or over
Education
High school diploma or GEDAssociate’s degreeBachelor’s degreeDoctorate
XXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XX.XXX.X
X.XXX.XXX.XXX.X
XX.XXX.XXX.XXX.XX.X
Quantitative Results Write-Up ExampleNull Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference in the presence of organizationalchange readiness factors associated with the successful outcomes of organizationalchange initiatives between men and women.
To investigate null hypothesis 1, and to determine if there is a significant difference inthe presence of organizational change readiness factors associated with the successfuloutcomes of organizational change initiatives between men and women, a between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. Prior to analysis, theassumptions of an ANOVA were assessed for all four dependent variables. Normalitywas assessed with the examination of scatterplots and the assumption was met.Homogeneity of variance was assessed with Levene’s test of equality of variance; theresult of the test was not significant, verifying the assumption of equality of variance.
The result of the ANOVA on Variable 2 was not statistically significant, F (X, XXX) =0.09, p = .XXX, suggesting that statistical differences do not exist on Variable 2 bygender (male vs. female). There was not a statistically significant difference in theVariable 2 scores of males (M = X.XX, SD = X.XX) and females (M = X.XX, SD = X.XX).The results of the ANOVA are summarized in Table 1.
Quantitative Results Write-Up ExampleTable 1
ANOVA on Variable 1 by Gender (Male vs. Female)
Source SS MS F (X,XXX) P n2
Variable 1
Between X.XX X.XX X.XX .XXX .XX
Error X.XX X.XX
Qualitative
Qualitative ResultsLine number documents.
Thematize narrative (provide 3+ representativeexcerpts).
Kappa inter-rater reliability.
Grounded Theory: Open-Axial-Selective coding.
The results should make sense to a lay reader.
Qualitative ResultsMarker Mean Kappa (and Frequency) for Bill, Detert, and Reid Cases.
Bill Case Detert Cases Reid Case
(59 excerpts) (82 excerpts) (106 excerpts)
Marker (Themes) Kappa (Freq) Kappa (Freq) Kappa (Freq)
1. Body Symptoms .52 (1.14)** .46 (2.64)** .16 (4.00)
2. Downplaying Negativity .12 (1.07) .05 (0.93) .09 (3.00)
3. Avoiding Responsibility .20 (1.86) .04 (2.29) .03 (1.79)
4. Distancing Language .76 (3.00)*** .07 (2.29) .12 (3.64)
5……
20. Stepping Back .15 (2.43) .07 (3.86) .08 (5.43)
21. Putting Pieces Together .27 (2.86)* .15 (5.14) .25 (3.79)*
22. Almost, But Not Quite .12 (2.43) .05 (4.79) .03 (3.29)
23. Deciding to Act Diff. .07 (0.79) .32 (6.57)* .11 (2.64)
24. Noticing Change .62 (6.64)*** .32 (6.21)* .44 (8.36)**
25. Asserting Needs .04 (0.21) .25 (5.71)* .31 (7.36)*
26. Coming to Solution .07 (1.43) .11 (1.36) .03 (1.71)
Note. ****Almost perfect agreement, ***Substantial agreement, **Moderate agreement, *Fair
agreement, according to Landis & Koch (1977). Unless otherwise specified, each coefficient has
a slight level of agreement.
Inter-rater ReliabilityCalculation of a Kappa Statistic for Theme 1 Between Rater 1 and Rater 2
Rater 1
Rater 2 Present Absent Subtotal
Present A B A+B
Absent C D C+D
Subtotal A+C B+D A+B+C+D
Observed Agreement = (A + D)
Expected Agreement = (((A + B) * (A + C)) + ((C + D) * (B + D))) / (A + B + C + D)
Kappa = ((observed agreement) – (expected agreement)) / ((A + B + C + D) – (expected agreement))
Note. A, B, C, and D are the frequencies in which a marker is identified in same excerpt between rater 1 and rate 2.
Results Summary
Give them the highlights of the findings.
Paint a picture of what was found.
Make it comprehensible.
Discussion
DiscussionIntroduce the chapter.
Reiterate the results with clear support or non-support for the hypotheses.
Do the results fit into the existing literature or is this something new?
Implications of the results for both theory and practice.
Limitations of the study.
Recommendations for future research (what you would do if you had all ofthe time, money, and energy in the world).
Conclusions—summarize the discussion chapter here.
APA Editing
APA EditingFormatting: table of contents, tables andfigures, references.
Level of headings.
Should all be past tense.
References all cross-checked.
Retain an editor!
Dissertation Defense
Dissertation Defense
Be prepared (just like comps, but easier).
Get all the committee’s questions out of the wayprior to the meeting (if possible).
Run through your PowerPoint with colleague/partner and incorporate their feedback.
Relax!
Questions &
Answers
Reserve your spot now!
Our calendar is filling up fast, so reserve your spot on our schedule to
ensure your turnaround time.