Spss output one sample statistics n mean std

This preview shows page 15 - 19 out of 23 pages.

SPSS outputOne-Sample StatisticsNMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error MeanEOMG467.43481.78453.26311One-Sample TestTest Value = 0tdfSig. (2-tailed)Mean Difference95% Confidence Interval of theDifferenceLowerUpperEOMG28.25745.0007.434786.90487.9647VariableMeanSDt-valuedfP-valueMobileGame effect7.431.7828.26450.000Table 5: Effect of Mobile Games Towards UiTM Shah Alam Masscom StudentsTable 4 shows that the UiTM Shah Alam students at Faculty of Mass Communication showsignificant effect of mobile games (t (45) = 28.26, p < 0.05). Therefore reject Hat= 0.05ɑlevel of significant. The results show that mobile games do effect students negatively wherestudents who frequently play mobile games are often positively related to mental healthproblems and higher level of social anxiety and loneliness after excessive use of mobilegaming.15
2.5ONE WAY ANOVA TEST: TIME SPENT ON MOBILE GAMES2.5.1TIME SPENT ON MOBILE GAMES: AGE DIFFERENCESPSS outputDescriptivesTSMGNMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error95% Confidence Interval forMeanMinimumMaximumLower BoundUpper Bound18-20 years old214.50004.949753.50000-29.971758.971711.0018.0021-23 years old4013.50002.40725.3806212.730114.26999.0018.0024-26 years old312.00003.000001.732054.547619.45249.0015.0021.00114.0000....14.0014.00Total4613.45652.48289.3660812.719214.19389.0018.00ANOVATSMGSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.Between Groups8.91332.971.465.708Within Groups268.500426.393Total277.41345VariableMeandfFP-valueTSMG withage variable2.971450.4650.708Table 6: One-way ANOVA test: Time spent on Mobile Games (Age Difference)Results above shows the Time Spent on Mobile Games with age variable. From table 6, wecan see (F= 0.465, p > 0.05). Therefore, there is no significant difference on time spent onmobile games with age difference. No matter their age, their time spent on mobile games areall the same. Since the p-value is > 0.05, the study fail to reject the null hypothesis.16
2.5.2TIME SPENT ON MOBILE GAMES: SEMESTER DIFFERENCESPSS outputDescriptivesTSMGNMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error95% Confidence Interval forMeanMinimumMaximumLower BoundUpper BoundSemester 2210.00001.414211.00000-2.706222.70629.0011.00Semester 3513.60002.408321.0770310.609716.590311.0017.00Semester 43513.45712.51282.4247412.594014.32039.0018.00Semester 5215.00001.414211.000002.293827.706214.0016.00Semester 6215.00001.414211.000002.293827.706214.0016.00Total4613.45652.48289.3660812.719214.19389.0018.00ANOVATSMGSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.Between Groups33.52748.3821.409.248Within Groups243.886415.948Total277.41345VariableMeandfFP-valueTSMG withsem variable8.382451.4090.248Table 7: One-way ANOVA test: Time spent on Mobile Games (semester difference)Results above shows the Time Spent on Mobile Games with semester variable. From table 7,we can see (F= 1.409, p > 0.05). Therefore, there is no significant difference on time spent onmobile games with semester difference. No matter their semester, their time spent on mobilegames are all the same. Since the p-value is > 0.05, the study fail to reject the null hypothesis.2.5.3TIME SPENT ON MOBILE GAMES: SEQUENCE DIFFERENCE17
SPSS outputDescriptivesTSMGNMeanStd.

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 23 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
PROFESSOR
Tags
Shah Alam, EFFECT OF MOBILE GAMES

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture