05 apart from: (1) the MANOVA which was set at p < 01 as prelimi

05 apart from: (1) the MANOVA which was set at p < .01 as preliminary assumption testing revealed violations in terms of homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices and equality of variance, (2) post hoc Tukey’s studentized range test where p < .01 was employed, and (3) post hoc tests assessing group effects, where

a Bonferroni corrected alpha of .008 was employed. All data analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 19 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Of the 2129 students registered on the target courses, 850 did not attend the teaching session where data collect took place; therefore, the 1279 Vincristine research buy attending were invited to participate. Of these, 1036 (81.0%) responded giving an overall response rate of 48.6%. There were no significant differences between courses in terms of response rates. Participants were predominately female (n = 815, 78.7%), were on average 20.3 years of age (median (IQR) = 20.3 (2.17) years) and were of a healthy body

mass index (BMI) (median (IQR) = 21.6 (3.79) kg/m2). There were significant student group effects on gender, age and BMI (p < .001). Although there were more males in the medical student group compared to other courses (p < .01) and Nursing BSc students were more likely to be older and have higher BMI than other student groups (p < .01), these differences were not significant using the Bonferroni corrected alpha buy OSI-744 of .008. The one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences between ratings (Wilks’ Lambda = .19, F(10,1090) = 471.22, p < .001, multivariate

eta squared = .81). According to Cohen, the effect size can be considered to be very large [53]. Post hoc Tukey’s studentized range test identified statistically significant differences between pairs of terms ( Fig. 1). Participants’ preferred terms when raising the issue of obesity with clients were BMI (mean = .96), weight MRIP (mean = .71) and unhealthy BMI (mean = .43) ( Fig. 1). None of the 11 terms were considered to be ‘desirable’ (+1) to ‘very desirable’ (+2). On average, participants rated fatness (mean = −1.57), excess fat (mean = −1.24), large size (mean = −1.17), and heaviness (mean = −1.14) as being ‘undesirable’ (−1) to ‘very undesirable’ (−2) while obesity (mean = −.57), excess weight (mean = −.33), weight problem (mean = −.13) and unhealthy body weight (mean = .08) were rated as ‘neutral’ (0) to ‘undesirable’ (−1). The one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance revealed significant effects in relation to the course that students were registered on, but not gender (Pillai’s trace = .09, F(44,4320) = 2.27, p < .001, multivariate eta squared = .02). However, according to Cohen, the effect size can be considered to be very small [53].

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>