Life satisfaction has been defined as a global evaluation by the person of their life and is considered as an important construct in understanding adolescents' psychological health. There has been much research on this construct within the general population. But there is a need to investigate this psychological factor among other special populations such as gifted students. Although there is evidence that gifted students experience more stress, anxiety, and adjustment problems than do nongifted students, some studies showed that gifted students experience lower levels of anxiety than nongifted students. Because of these discrepancies it is unknown whether gifted or nongifted students would report more positive life satisfaction. And, it is unknown how this effect looks for boys and girls.

Prominent Research Question: Do differences in life satisfaction between gifted and nongifted students depend on gender? In other words, is the pattern observed for gifted versus nongifted different for girls and boys?

Prominent Null hypothesis: The difference in life satisfaction between gifted and nongifted students is the same for boys and girls.

Procedure: Participants in this study were from different high schools. One high school was a special school for gifted students and the other was for regular students. The mean age of the sample was 16.01 years (SD= .92, ranged from 14 to 18 years). Participants completed the Multidimensional Students' Life Satisfaction Scale which assesses global life satisfaction. Items on the scale are summed to score between 10 and 50.

Is the pattern observed for gifted versus nongifted different for girls and boys?

Two-way ANOVA (all results)

Main effect for giftedness (gifted vs, nongifted - means/SD)

Main effect for gender (girls vs. boys - means/SD)

Interaction effect? 2 simple main effects tests: Does giftedness affect life satisfaction among giris? - means/SD Does giftedness affect life satisfaction among boys? - means/SD

Use this checklist to make sure all the information is included:

The headingResultsis bolded and centered

Report is written using complete sentences and in paragraph format

All alphabetic notation is italicized (F, p, M, SD)

Space included before and after mathematical signs (e.g.,M = 3.20)

Values for F, p, effect size, M, SD are rounded to 2 decimal places (with exception of whenp < .001)

F-statements contain all appropriate information:F(dfb, dfe) = #,p = #, _p² = #.

There is no space between the F and parenthesis, but there is a space after the comma when reporting df in the F-statement

Proper notation for partial eta-squared is used: _p² or partial ²

The exact value for p is provided (e.g.,p = .25) with exception ofp < .001

Additionally...

Did you identify your ANOVA?

Are the variables being tested clearly identified?

Did you report the results for each main effect?

Did you indicate if the effect was significant or not?

Did you provide the complete F-statement? Did you double-check your values, spacing, and notation?

If there are more than 3 levels for a factor, and the effect was significant (i.e., reject H0), did you mention which post hoc tests you ran - Bonferroni or Tukey's HSD? Did you report the results clearly for all pairwise comparisons from the post hoc tests?

If there are only 2 levels, did you avoid mentioning post hoc tests?

Did you include all the (marginal) means and standard deviations in-text, only one time each? Did you double-check your values, spacing, and notation?

Did you report the results for the interaction effect?

Did you indicate if the effect was significant or not?

Did you provide the complete F-statement? Did you double-check your values, spacing, and notation?

If the effect was significant, did you outline what simple main effects tests you conducted to interpret the results? (e.g., To decompose the interaction effect, we examined the effect of stress on performance separately for younger and older adults)

Did you report the results for each simple main effect test, including if the pairwise comparison was significant or not?

Did you include all the cell means and standard deviations in-text, only one time each? Did you double-check your values, spacing, and notation?

Between-Subjects Factors
	Value Label	N
group	1.00	nongifted	40
2.00	gifted	40
gender	1.00	male	40
2.00	female	40

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: satisfaction
group	gender	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
nongifted	male	32.6000	1.72901	20
female	36.9000	1.68273	20
Total	34.7500	2.75262	40
gifted	male	31.7000	1.45458	20
female	33.7000	1.94936	20
Total	32.7000	1.97679	40
Total	male	32.1500	1.64161	40
female	35.3000	2.42000	40
Total	33.7250	2.59491	80

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: satisfaction
Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	Partial Eta Squared
Corrected Model	308.950a	3	102.983	35.097	<.001	.581
Intercept	90990.050	1	90990.050	31010.062	<.001	.998
group	84.050	1	84.050	28.645	<.001	.274
gender	198.450	1	198.450	67.633	<.001	.471
group * gender	26.450	1	26.450	9.014	.004	.106
Error	223.000	76	2.934
Total	91522.000	80
Corrected Total	531.950	79
a. R Squared = .581 (Adjusted R Squared = .564)

Estimated Marginal Means

group * gender
Dependent Variable: satisfaction
group	gender	Mean	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound	Upper Bound
nongifted	male	32.600	.383	31.837	33.363
female	36.900	.383	36.137	37.663
gifted	male	31.700	.383	30.937	32.463
female	33.700	.383	32.937	34.463