please help me,I really wanted your help in the first place before the other tutor came by. Are you able to do it by the end of today?

Quantitative Design Worksheet Name: 1. A researcher reports the results of a 2 x 3 factorial design. How many factors did the researcher consider and how many levels did each factor have? (2 points) 2. A researcher reports the results of a single-factor between-subjects ANOVA as F(3, 195) = 3.84, p = .01 a. How many levels (i.e., conditions) did the researcher's independent variable have? (1 point) b. How many participants were in this researcher's study? (1 point) 3. A researcher computes a correlation between gender and a measure of verbal ability, which she reports as r = -.34, p = .02. Gender is coded 0 = Female, 1 = Male, and the verbal ability measure is coded such that higher scores indicate greater verbal ability. a. How would you interpret the researcher's result? Be sure to include a discussion of the correlation's direction, magnitude, and statistical significance. (2 points) b. According to the criteria in your book, did the researcher find a small, medium, or large correlation? (1 point) 4. In ANOVA, the F ratio is computed as a. Conceptually, what do MS Between F= MS Between MS Within and MS Within each represent? (4 points) b. If a researcher obtains an F ratio of 1.00, does this likely represent a statistically significant MS Between MS Within finding? Justify your answer based on your understanding of and . (2 points) 5. A researcher decides to evaluate the impact of a self-regulation intervention on children's academic performance. Because ADHD represents a deficit in self-regulation skills, he implements a 2 x 2 between-subjects factorial design and obtains the following data (higher scores indicate better academic performance): ADHD Diagnosis No ADHD Diagnosis Column Means Control 75 100 87.5 Intervention 100 100 100 Row Mean 87.5 100 Which he plots as: The researcher examines his main effects without considering how the factors interact. The results suggest a significant main effect for ADHD status (children diagnosed with ADHD have lower academic performance) and a significant main effect for the intervention (children in the intervention group have higher academic performance). Based on these results, the researcher suggests that the intervention is effective for improving children's academic performance. His local school district implements the intervention for all children. a. Had the researcher examined the interaction between his factors, would he have found a significant interaction? Justify your answer. (3 points) b. How would the researcher's interpretation of the intervention's effectiveness changed had he considered the interaction? (3 points) 6. Using a subsample of data from the Young Entrepreneurs Study, I examined the correlations among three variables: PYD: An overall index of Positive Youth Development Machiavellian: An index of participants' Machiavellian morality (e.g., \"I am willing to be unethical if I believe it will help me succeed.\") Assertiveness: An index of how willing participants are to voice their true opinions (e.g., \"When I talk with others, I give my real opinions and thoughts.\") I obtained the following results: Correlations PYD PYD Pearson Correlation Machiavellian .211** .000 .000 3101 3101 3101 -.315** 1 -.013 1 Sig. (2-tailed) N Machiavellian Assertiveness Pearson Correlation Assertiveness ** -.315 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 3101 3101 3101 ** -.013 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .465 N 3101 3101 Pearson Correlation .211 .465 3101 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). How would you interpret each of the three correlations above? Be sure to include a discussion of each correlation's direction, magnitude, and statistical significance. (5 points) 7. Using the same data as in question 6, I ran an ANOVA to determine whether PYD is different across three groups of students. Groups were determined using self-reported GPA (3.00 or above, between 2.00 and 3.00, or below 2.00). I obtained the following: ANOVA PYD Sum of Squares Between Groups df Mean Square 6.960 2 3.480 Within Groups 624.231 3098 .201 Total 631.191 3100 F Sig. 17.271 .000 a. How would you interpret this result? (4 points) b. What could I do if I wanted to obtain more specific information about which groups displayed significantly higher/lower PYD than which other groups? (2 points)