Re: SPSS Syntax for Mixed Design Simple Effects

Posted by Dina Gohar on Apr 29, 2011; 6:58am
URL: http://spssx-discussion.165.s1.nabble.com/SPSS-Syntax-for-Mixed-Design-Simple-Effects-tp4357727p4358779.html

Hi Rich,

Thanks so much for trying to help! Sorry for the confusion. I have over 150 subjects so power should not be an issue. It is all within subjects [no experimentally manipulated conditions], though people have been classified into 1 of 3 groups based on their depression scores, which is one of the predictor variables of interest.

Each of the subjects filled out a Likert Scale for 19 trait dimensions 9 times, one for each of the 9 people or targets [e.g., their mom, their best friend, an authority figure, a child.], as if they were going to show those ratings to that person/target. One of the goals here is to look at whether people who score high/low/0 on depression self-present on any of these traits to any of these targets differently. The three way interaction between depression trait and target was significant in my mixed ANOVA, I am just having trouble figuring out how to parse it further [beyond finding out that the two-way interaction is significant within each level of depression] with simple effects in SPSS to find out the exact effects of depression within each target and within each trait.

I hope this clarification made sense. Thanks again for any suggestions!

Dina

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Rich Ulrich <[hidden email]> wrote:

As I read this, you have 9 subjects, who are each classed into
one of 3 groups; and you want to analyze -- in one analysis --
19 traits.

Do I understand this correctly?  - If that is it, I would suggest
that about the only MAIN analysis possible is to take one score,
selecting it from the 19 or computing a composite for several
(or all) of them;  and look at either the correlation (if the
groups are ordered) or the simple ANOVA.  Your power of analysis
will be tiny, for 3 groups with N=9,  but any other analysis
would be even smaller ... if it is even interpretable.

If that is not it, please clarify.

--
Rich Ulrich