Uedufy
Back to overview
Live examples

See real interpretations, not screenshots

Five real SPSS outputs, interpreted in full by the same engine you get when you sign in — in your language, with the tables, ready for your thesis.

Scenario
Two of nine hypotheses from one thesis: an independent-samples t-test (H1) and a PROCESS Model 4 mediation (H8).
Group Statistics

           Gender         N          Mean       Std. Deviation     Std. Error Mean
 LS_Mean   1              180     3.4222               .73626               .05488
           2              218     3.6908               .70679               .04787

                                 Independent Samples Test
                                            Levene's Test for Equality of        t-test for Equality of
                                                     Variances                           Means

[…]

Run MATRIX procedure:

          Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D.       www.afhayes.com
    Documentation available in Hayes (2022). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3
Model : 4
    Y : LS_Mean
    X : IQ_Mean
    M : TU_Mean

Sample
Size: 400
OUTCOME VARIABLE:
 TU_Mean

Model Summary
          R           R-sq               MSE             F                df1            df2
 p
      .2603          .0677            .5153       28.9156           1.0000      398.0000             .00
00

Model
                 coeff              se               t                p           LLCI           ULCI
constant        2.4815           .1891         13.1212            .0000         2.1097         2.8533
IQ_Mean          .2748           .0511          5.3773            .0000          .1743          .3752

Standardized coefficients
             coeff
IQ_Mean      .2603
OUTCOME VARIABLE:
 LS_Mean

Model Summary

                                                                                           Page 26

            R        R-sq           MSE             F           df1            df2
 p
        .5519       .3046      .3725         86.9548      2.0000      397.0000             .00
00

Model
                 coeff         se               t           p           LLCI           ULCI
constant        1.0707      .1924          5.5638       .0000          .6924         1.4491
IQ_Mean          .4201      .0450          9.3370       .0000          .3316          .5085
TU_Mean          .2796      .0426          6.5620       .0000          .1959          .3634

Standardized coefficients
             coeff
IQ_Mean      .4047
TU_Mean      .2844
OUTCOME VARIABLE:
 LS_Mean

Model Summary
          R          R-sq           MSE             F           df1            df2
 p
      .4787         .2292      .4118        118.3430      1.0000      398.0000             .00
00

Model
                 coeff         se               t           p           LLCI           ULCI
constant        1.7647      .1691         10.4376       .0000         1.4323         2.0971
IQ_Mean          .4969      .0457         10.8786       .0000          .4071          .5867

Standardized coefficients
             coeff
IQ_Mean      .4787

Total effect of X on Y
     Effect         se                t             p       LLCI           ULCI             c_
cs
      .4969      .0457       10.8786           .0000       .4071          .5867            .47
87

Direct effect of X on Y

                                                                                 Page 27

     Effect           se        t          p          LLCI     ULCI         c'_
cs
      .4201      .0450     9.3370      .0000      .3316       .5085         .40
47

Indirect effect(s) of X on Y:
            Effect     BootSE   BootLLCI   BootULCI
TU_Mean      .0768      .0180      .0442      .1142

Completely standardized indirect effect(s) of X on Y:
            Effect     BootSE   BootLLCI   BootULCI
TU_Mean      .0740      .0167      .0431      .1081

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:
  95.0000

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals:
  5000

------
Output: APA interpretation
Tests Performed
  • H1: Independent Samples t-Test (LS_Mean by Gender)
  • H1: Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
  • H8: Mediation Analysis — PROCESS Model 4 (IQ_Mean → TU_Mean → LS_Mean; 5,000 bootstrap samples)

H1

An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine whether LS_Mean differed between Gender group 1 and Gender group 2 (Gender group 3, n = 2, was excluded per syntax specification; analysis N = 398). Levene's test for equality of variances was non-significant, F(1, 396) = 0.31, p = .578, so equal variances were assumed. The test revealed a statistically significant difference, t(396) = −3.703, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.41, −0.13], with Gender group 1 (M = 3.42, SD = 0.74) scoring lower than Gender group 2 (M = 3.69, SD = 0.71). Cohen's d = 0.37, indicating a small effect size (Cohen, 1988). The hypothesis was supported.

Table 1: Group Statistics and Independent Samples t-Test Results for LS_Mean by Gender

GroupnMSDMean DifferenceSEtdfpCohen's d
Gender 11803.420.74−0.270.07−3.703396< .0010.37
Gender 22183.690.71

Note. Equal variances assumed; Levene's F(1, 396) = 0.31, p = .578. Gender group 3 (n = 2) was excluded from the analysis. The 95% CI for the mean difference was [−0.41, −0.13]. Cohen's d reflects a small effect size (Cohen, 1988).

H8

PROCESS Model 4 mediation analysis (Hayes, 2022) was conducted to examine whether TU_Mean mediated the relationship between IQ_Mean and LS_Mean (N = 400), using 5,000 bootstrap samples and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals. Path coefficients and effect estimates are presented in Table 9. The a-path (IQ_Mean → TU_Mean) was significant (B = 0.27, SE = 0.05, t = 5.377, p < .001, 95% CI [0.17, 0.38]), indicating that higher IQ_Mean was associated with higher TU_Mean. The b-path (TU_Mean → LS_Mean, controlling for IQ_Mean) was also significant (B = 0.28, SE = 0.04, t = 6.562, p < .001, 95% CI [0.20, 0.36]). The indirect effect of IQ_Mean on LS_Mean through TU_Mean was significant (B = 0.08, BootSE = 0.02, 95% Boot CI [0.04, 0.11]), as the confidence interval excluded zero; the completely standardized indirect effect was .074. The direct effect of IQ_Mean on LS_Mean remained significant after controlling for TU_Mean (B = 0.42, SE = 0.05, t = 9.337, p < .001, 95% CI [0.33, 0.51]), and the total effect was also significant (B = 0.50, SE = 0.05, t = 10.879, p < .001, 95% CI [0.41, 0.59]). Because both the indirect effect and the direct effect were significant, the results indicate partial mediation of the IQ_Mean → LS_Mean relationship by TU_Mean. The hypothesis was supported.

Table 9: Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects for the Mediation of LS_Mean by TU_Mean (IQ_Mean as Predictor)

EffectBSE / BootSEtp95% CI
a-path: IQ_Mean → TU_Mean0.270.055.377< .001[0.17, 0.38]
b-path: TU_Mean → LS_Mean0.280.046.562< .001[0.20, 0.36]
Direct effect: IQ_Mean → LS_Mean0.420.059.337< .001[0.33, 0.51]
Indirect effect: IQ_Mean → TU_Mean → LS_Mean0.080.02[0.04, 0.11]
Total effect: IQ_Mean → LS_Mean0.500.0510.879< .001[0.41, 0.59]

Note. N = 400. Bootstrap samples = 5,000; 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals. SE for the indirect effect is BootSE. The 95% Boot CI for the indirect effect excludes zero, indicating a significant indirect effect. Completely standardized indirect effect = .074. Partial mediation was concluded because both the direct and indirect effects were significant (Hayes, 2022).

References

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.

Your construct names, written into the text
SPSS variable names are replaced by the names you give them — and in other languages the sentence is rewritten so the grammar stays correct.
As generated

An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine whether LS_Mean differed between Gender group 1 and Gender group 2 (Gender group 3, n = 2, was excluded per syntax specification; analysis N = 398). Levene's test for equality of variances was non-significant, F(1, 396) = 0.31, p = .578, so equal variances were assumed. The test revealed a statistically significant difference, t(396) = −3.703, p < .001, 95% CI [−

After renaming

An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine whether learning satisfaction differed between gender group 1 and gender group 2 (gender group 3, n = 2, was excluded per syntax specification; analysis N = 398). Levene's test for equality of variances was non-significant, F(1, 396) = 0.31, p = .578, so equal variances were assumed. The test revealed a statistically significant difference, t(396) = −3.703, p < .001, 95% CI [−

LS_Meanlearning satisfactionGendergender
How these examples were produced
Each example is the unedited output of the Chapter 4 Interpreter for a real SPSS output file (a 400-respondent survey with four Likert scales), generated on 6 September 2026 and checked number by number against the SPSS tables by the Uedufy team. The translations were produced by the same tool and reviewed by native speakers where noted. Nothing here was written by hand.

Ready for your own output?

Upload your PDF or paste your text — same quality, ready in minutes.

$5 for 5 interpretations · $15 for 20 (Thesis Pack)
APA Results Section Examples from Real SPSS Output | Chapter 4 Interpreter