ºÝºÝߣ

ºÝºÝߣShare a Scribd company logo

table 2

•Download as DOC, PDF•
•
D
Despina Ioannidou

This table summarizes 7 studies that examined priming effects in Alzheimer's disease patients by comparing test scores on studied words versus unstudied words. It reports the effect size information and statistical significance from t-tests or F-tests conducted in each study, with most finding significant priming effects at the 0.05 level or better. The table also includes the corresponding effect size r calculated for each study, ranging from 0.54 to 0.71.

Convert to study guideBETA

Transform any presentation into a summarized study guide, highlighting the most important points and key insights.

1 of 1
Download to read offline
Table 2.Size effects for each study resulting from the comparison between the scores of AD patients in baseline and target stems(priming effects) Study Effect size information Sig. studied words vs unstudied (priming effect) Effect size r 1)Salmon et al (1988) 2)Keane & Gabrieli (1991) 3)Gabrieli et al (1994) 4)Russo & Spinler (1994) 5)Park et al (1998) 6)Fleischman et al (1997) 7)Perani et al (1992) t-test reported as 2.7,df=12 t-test reported as 2.76.df=9 t-test reported as significant under three encoding conditions at 0.2 and 0.1 respectively, df=14 t-test reported as 3.24,df=11 t-test reported as 2.90 at, df=15 t-test reported as significant under two encoding conditions at 0.001, df=27 F reported as significant at 0.01 with df=3,14(N=18) 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.01 significance significance significance significance significance significance significance r = 0.60 r = 0.67 mean r=0.63 r = 0.69 r = 0.59 mean r=0.71 r = 0.54

More Related Content

table 2

  • 1. Table 2.Size effects for each study resulting from the comparison between the scores of AD patients in baseline and target stems(priming effects) Study Effect size information Sig. studied words vs unstudied (priming effect) Effect size r 1)Salmon et al (1988) 2)Keane & Gabrieli (1991) 3)Gabrieli et al (1994) 4)Russo & Spinler (1994) 5)Park et al (1998) 6)Fleischman et al (1997) 7)Perani et al (1992) t-test reported as 2.7,df=12 t-test reported as 2.76.df=9 t-test reported as significant under three encoding conditions at 0.2 and 0.1 respectively, df=14 t-test reported as 3.24,df=11 t-test reported as 2.90 at, df=15 t-test reported as significant under two encoding conditions at 0.001, df=27 F reported as significant at 0.01 with df=3,14(N=18) 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.01 significance significance significance significance significance significance significance r = 0.60 r = 0.67 mean r=0.63 r = 0.69 r = 0.59 mean r=0.71 r = 0.54