03 May 2020 4 7K Report

I performed the Wilcoxon test on 3 sets of pretest/post test scores (one set for each of 3 sub groups of my independent variable: control group, medium frequency group who did an activity a moderate number of times, and high frequency group who did the activity a larger number of times). The control group showed no significant difference between pretest and post test scores, but the 2 experimental groups did.

Then I did the Kruskal Wallis test on the results of each of the groups by doing: post test minus pretest, and getting the gain scores of each group. So the Kruskal Wallis was done on the gain scores of each of the 3 groups (control group, and 2 experimental groups) to detect differences between them, and then a post hoc test to find out exactly where the difference is. There was only a difference between the control group and the high frequency experimental group.

How would I explain all of this in my discussion of the results? Does it make sense to say that although the medium frequency experimental group showed a significant difference between pretest and post test results, the improvement score of this group showed no significant difference in relation to that of the control group? Therefore, the activity performed by the medium frequency group was not effective enough to reach results significantly greater than the control group's results?

I just don't understand when I discuss these results in my paper, is the number of times that the medium freq. group did the activity supposed to be explained as one that did lead to a statistical significance (according to Wilcoxon) or not (according to Kruskal)? Since there is an improvement between the pre and posttest of this group (according to Wilcoxon), then why is their improvement score not considered significant compared to the control group (according to Kruskal)?

More Yara M..'s questions See All
Similar questions and discussions