Description
I have written my results chapter for my dissrtattion but i received a comment from my supervisor to revise my way of rporting the results for the linear mixed effect regression model according to the given format. I have 6 lmer tables so six sections need to be edited.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Chapter 4: Results
Table 1. LMER Obtained for the First Fixation Duration in Experiment 1
β
S. E.
t
df
P-value
95% CI of β
Prof_level2
-0.021
0.081
-0.26
230.2
0.796
(-0.180, 0.138)
Prof_level3
-0.046
0.081
-0.56
241.3
0.573
(-0.285, 0.114)
Syntactic_type1
0.020
0.072
0.27
508.6
0.787
(-0.123, 0.162)
Condition2
-0.031
0.068
-0.45
1314.8
0.651
(-0.164, 0.103)
Condition3
0.095
0.068
1.40
1313.7
0.162
(-0.038, 0.227)
Condition4
-0.062
0.068
-0.91
1322.1
0.364
(-0.195, 0.072)
Syntactic_type1:Condition2
-0.020
0.038
-0.54
936.7
0.588
(-0.095, 0.054)
Syntactic_type1:Condition3
-0.044
0.036
-1.22
823.6
0.221
(-0.115, 0.027)
Syntactic_type1:Condition4
0.021
0.037
0.57
969.2
0.568
(-0.051, 0.093)
Prof_level2:Condition2
0.007
0.057
0.12
1320.7
0.905
(-0.105, 0.119)
Prof_level3:Condition2
-0.001
0.060
-0.01
1309.8
0.989
(-0.119, 0.117)
Prof_level2:Condition3
-0.088
0.056
-1.57
1313.9
0.116
(-0.197, 0.022)
Prof_level3:Condition3
-0.038
0.058
-0.66
1306.8
0.511
(-0.153, 0.076)
Prof_level2:Condition4
0.065
0.057
1.15
1308.8
0.249
(-0.046, 0.177)
Prof_level3:Condition4
0.020
0.059
0.34
1305.1
0.736
(-0.096, 0.136)
Prof_level2:Syntactic_type1 0.012
0.042
0.29
1320.6
0.771
(-0.071, 0.095)
Prof_level3:Syntactic_type1 0.011
0.044
0.24
1322.6
0.810
(-0.076, 0.098)
Reference level for Proficiency: elementary, Prof level 2: intermediate, Prof level 3: advanced. Reference
level for syntactic type: /for/, syntactic type 1: /of/. Reference level for condition: /S-grammatical/,
Condition 2: /P-grammatical/, Condition3 /P-ungrammatical/, Condition4 /S-ungrammatical/.
This test investigates the relationship between first-fixation duration as the outcome variable and
proficiency, syntactic type, and condition with their related variables as predictor variables. Each
row represents a predictor variable or an interaction between predictor variables. For instance,
the β coefficient of prof-level 2 is -0.021, which indicates that having prof_level2: intermediate
(compared to the reference level: elementary) is associated with a decrease in the first fixation
outcome variable. However, the effect is not statistically significant as the p-value is 0.796,
which is greater than the significance value of 0.05. The same applies for prof-level 3, whose β
coefficient of -0.046 suggests that having prof_level3: advanced compared to the elementary
level used as reference is associated with a decrease in the first fixation duration. As in the
previous case, the obtained result is not statistically significant considering the obtained p-value
of 0.573. The next predicator variable is syntactic-type. Its β coefficient of 0.020 suggests that
having syntactic_type1 /of/ is associated with a slight increase in the first fixation outcome
variable compared to the other syntactic type /for/, despite the fact that this effect seems not to be
statistically significant based on the obtained p-value of 0.787. As for the last predicator variable
condition, the coefficients of condition2 /P-grammatical/, condition3 /P-ungrammatical/,
condition4 /S-ungrammatical/ (compared to the reference condition /S-grammatical/) suggest
that these conditions have no significant effect on the first fixation outcome variable because
their associated p-values of 0.651, 0.162, and 0.364 are all greater than 0.05. Nonetheless, the
coefficient of -0.031 suggests that having condition2 /P-grammatical/ (compared to the reference
condition) is associated with a decrease in the first fixation outcome variable. Additionally, the
coefficient of 0.095 suggests that having condition3 /S-grammatical/ (compared to the reference
condition) is associated with an increase in the first fixation. The coefficient of -0.062 suggests
that having condition4 /P-ungrammatical/ is associated with a decrease in the first fixation
compared to the reference condition.
The table also shows interactions between the study’s predictor variables, indicated by
combinations of predictor variables separated by a colon (:) and their effect on first fixation as
the outcome variable. For instance, the β coefficient of -0.020 suggests that the interaction
between syntactic_type1 /of/: condition2 /P-grammatical/ has no significant effect on the first
fixation according to the obtained p-value of 0.588. The table also shows that most of the
interactions have no statistically significant effect on the first fixation. However, some
interesting findings related to the study can be identified based on the coefficients. For example,
the coefficient of -0.088 suggests that the interaction between prof_level2: intermediate and
condition3 /P-ungrammatical/ is associated with a decrease in the first fixation outcome variable.
Additionally, the coefficient of -0.038 suggests that the interaction between prof_level3:
advanced and condition3 /P-ungrammatical/ is associated with a decrease in the first fixation.
Similarly, the coefficient of the interaction between prof_level2: intermediate and condition2 /Pgrammatical is 0.007, indicating a small positive change in the first fixation. The coefficient of
the interaction between prof_level3: advanced and condition2 /P-grammatical/ is -0.001,
suggesting a negative, yet negligible change in the first fixation. The coefficient is not
statistically significant (p = 0.989). The coefficient of 0.065 suggests that the interaction between
prof_level2: intermediate and condition4 /S-ungrammatical/ is associated with an increase in the
first fixation. The interaction between prof_level3: advanced and condition4 /S-ungrammatical/
is also associated with an increase in the first fixation with the coefficient of 0.020.
4.1.2.
Table 2. LMER Obtained for the First Fixation Duration in Experiment 2
β
S. E.
t
df
P-value
95% CI of β
Prof_level2
-0.090
0.081
-1.11
207.8
0.270
(-0.249, 0.070)
Prof_level3
-0.106
0.081
-1.31
209.8
0.190
(-0.265, 0.053)
Syntactic_type1
0.060
0.071
0.85
1317.2
0.398
(-0.079, 0.199)
Condition2
0.019
0.066
0.29
1319.9
0.770
(-0.111, 0.149)
Condition3
-0.001
0.068
-0.01
1315.8
0.989
(-0.134, 0.132)
Condition4
-0.001
0.068
-0.02
1319.1
0.985
(-0.134, 0.132)
Syntactic_type1:Condition2
-0.022
0.036
-0.62
1321.6
0.535
(-0.092, 0.048)
Syntactic_type1:Condition3
-0.045
0.037
-1.22
1317.4
0.221
(-0.117, 0.027)
Syntactic_type1:Condition4
-0.044
0.036
-1.20
1320.8
0.231
(-0.115, 0.028)
Prof_level2:Condition2
0.048
0.055
0.88
1319.2
0.381
(-0.059, 0.155)
Prof_level3:Condition2
-0.008
0.058
-0.14
1319.4
0.892
(-0.121, 0.105)
Prof_level2:Condition3
0.043
0.057
0.75
1315.4
0.451
(-0.069, 0.155)
Prof_level3:Condition3
0.040
0.060
0.66
1316.4
0.508
(-0.078, 0.157)
Prof_level2:Condition4
0.045
0.057
0.79
1319.0
0.427
(-0.067, 0.158)
Prof_level3:Condition4
0.029
0.059
0.50
1319.3
0.618
(-0.086, 0.145)
Prof_level2:Syntactic_type1 -0.032
0.042
-0.74
1315.6
0.457
(-0.115, 0.052)
Prof_level3:Syntactic_type1 -0.015
0.045
-0.34
1315.3
0.731
(-0.103, 0.072)
Reference level for Proficiency: elementary, Prof level 2: intermediate, Prof level 3: advanced. Reference
level for syntactic type: /for/, syntactic type 1: /of/. Reference level for condition: /P-grammatical/,
condition2 /P-ungrammatical/, condition3 /S-grammatical/, and condition4 /S-ungrammatical/.
As shown in the table, none of the factors have p-values below the typical significance level of
0.05, indicating that none of the coefficients are statistically significant in predicting the first
fixation duration. To illustrate, the coefficients for prof_level2: intermediate, prof_level3
advanced, syntactic_type1 /of/, condition2 /P-ungrammatical/, condition3 /S-grammatical/, and
condition4 /S-ungrammatical/ are all close to zero, suggesting weak or no relationships with the
first fixation duration. As for the interactions in the study, the table shows that all interactions
also have coefficients close to zero, indicating no significant interaction effects on first fixation
duration in Experiment 2.
In summary, based on the given table, the LMER model does not provide strong evidence
of significant relationships between the three factors of the study and first fixation duration in
Experiment 2.
Table 11 represents the analysis of LMER obtained for the total fixation duration in
Experiment 1.
Table 3. LMER Obtained for the Total Fixation Duration in Experiment 1
β
S. E.
t
df
P-value
95% CI of β
Prof_level2
-0.002
0.139
-0.02
66.8
0.988
(-0.279, 0.275)
Prof_level3
-0.181
0.137
-1.32
67.5
0.192
(-0.455, 0.093)
Syntactic_type1
0.006
0.063
0.10
80.9
0.923
(-0.120, 0.132)
Condition2
-0.033
0.044
-0.74
1312.1
0.458
(-0.120, 0.054)
Condition3
0.067
0.044
1.53
1311.4
0.126
(-0.019, 0.154)
Condition4
0.047
0.044
1.08
1307.4
0.281
(-0.039, 0.134)
Syntactic_type1:Condition2
0.048
0.025
1.88
1322.3
0.060
(-0.002, 0.098)
Syntactic_type1:Condition3
0.031
0.024
1.29
1321.3
0.198
(-0.016, 0.079)
Syntactic_type1:Condition4
0.113
0.025
4.57
1321.8
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
