We are preparing an article, which contains several variables and tables presenting many beta values. The tables also contain many significant interactions. However, the used table type only reports significant betas. The reported beta values for interactions may be confusing for the reader, as there is no immediately clear interpretation for them, other than they are significant. We are making figures for the most important interaction-effects, but I am still unsatisfied to the tables, as I think some readers may find it confusing. Explaining all of the interactions verbally is also confusing for the reader.
Are there any ideas how to better and especially more understandably report the interactions?
If you say that the tables contain only significant interactions, therefore the unmentioned ones are not as significant, if not insignificant. My suggestion is that the table(s) be kept with significant interactions while the rest should be mentioned verbally even though you are reluctant to do it. If readers are told that the tables are exhaustive of the data, they should not feel confused. Don't worry.
Sorry, I mean "If readers are told that the tables are not exhaustive of the data."
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation