Definitely, you want to discuss "the number of experiences", 1-15, which is
the number of YES responses - and not talk about a confusing score (going
the wrong direction) that runs from 15 to 30.
Similarly, though not as strongly, it is usually preferable to use the average, not the
sum, for likert-type scoring, since the average lets you refer directly to the
verbal anchors. Name and score the Resilience and Stress variables in the direction
that makes sense for your discussion.
Without knowing the counts (sample, Experiences) and whether the means show
much variance, it is impossible to frame the best presentation.
I would start with ... no, wait, I always start with doing a factor analysis on the items
of any proposed scales, just to make sure that they all contribute in the same direction
as I expected. (No "bad" items.) And I would do examine a scattergram of the two
averages to see the spread of scores and the full-sample correlation.
Then I would start with looking at the means of Resil and Stress for each number of
Experiences, that is, ANOVA by Experiences. If I wanted to form Groups out of the
counts of Experiences, and if Exper appears to be Poisson-distributed, I might use the
boundaries based on the square-root of counts -- (0, 1, 2-4, 5-9, 10-15).
Finally -
"My hypothesis is: there is no statistically significant difference in resilience and stress of teacherswith 2 or more adverse experiences."
Difference between whom? Difference in means according to the count of experiences?
"Is there a correlation between Exper and Stress or Resil, for those with 2+ experiences?"
(You say 2+, but your test with "27" implies 3+. Less confusion with actual counts, as I said.)
- That would be a correlation on the selected sub-sample. (I'd probably use sqrt(Exper).)
Your other tests imply, probably, regression analyses.
--
Rich Ulrich
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |