Assignment 4 Example
From Visualization Sp06
| Revision as of 19:42, 9 March 2006 Jheer (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 19:45, 9 March 2006 Jheer (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| I was interested in seeing if there were significant differences in response time due to the visualization type presented. First, I grouped the response time data into three columns, separated by the visualization type. The means and standard deviations of these groups are shown in Figure 1, showing that on average bar charts outperformed pie charts which in turn outperformed tables. However, the deviations show a high overlap of the distributions. To test for significance I performed a Single Factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The ANOVA results show a significant difference indeed exists between the groups (''F''(2,4317)=8.871, ''MSE''=2603422, ''p''<0.05). Having found a significant difference, I then performed post-hoc paired t-tests to look for pairwise differences between the sample groups. All differences were found to be statistically significant: bar chart and pie chart (''t''(1439)=-2.273, ''p''<0.5, two-tailed), bar chart and table (''t''(1439)=-5.678, ''p''<0.5, two-tailed), and pie chart and table (''t''(1439)=-2.036, ''p''<0.05, two-tailed). | I was interested in seeing if there were significant differences in response time due to the visualization type presented. First, I grouped the response time data into three columns, separated by the visualization type. The means and standard deviations of these groups are shown in Figure 1, showing that on average bar charts outperformed pie charts which in turn outperformed tables. However, the deviations show a high overlap of the distributions. To test for significance I performed a Single Factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The ANOVA results show a significant difference indeed exists between the groups (''F''(2,4317)=8.871, ''MSE''=2603422, ''p''<0.05). Having found a significant difference, I then performed post-hoc paired t-tests to look for pairwise differences between the sample groups. All differences were found to be statistically significant: bar chart and pie chart (''t''(1439)=-2.273, ''p''<0.5, two-tailed), bar chart and table (''t''(1439)=-5.678, ''p''<0.5, two-tailed), and pie chart and table (''t''(1439)=-2.036, ''p''<0.05, two-tailed). | ||
| - | [[Image::A4Example.gif]] | + | [[Image:A4Example.gif]] |
Revision as of 19:45, 9 March 2006
I was interested in seeing if there were significant differences in response time due to the visualization type presented. First, I grouped the response time data into three columns, separated by the visualization type. The means and standard deviations of these groups are shown in Figure 1, showing that on average bar charts outperformed pie charts which in turn outperformed tables. However, the deviations show a high overlap of the distributions. To test for significance I performed a Single Factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The ANOVA results show a significant difference indeed exists between the groups (F(2,4317)=8.871, MSE=2603422, p<0.05). Having found a significant difference, I then performed post-hoc paired t-tests to look for pairwise differences between the sample groups. All differences were found to be statistically significant: bar chart and pie chart (t(1439)=-2.273, p<0.5, two-tailed), bar chart and table (t(1439)=-5.678, p<0.5, two-tailed), and pie chart and table (t(1439)=-2.036, p<0.05, two-tailed).
