Skip to main content
. 2013 Jan 31;3(1):99–119. doi: 10.3390/bs3010099

Table 2.

Comparison of the mean percent of scans spent on overall abnormal behavior over the three sample periods (2003 to 2005).

2003 2004 2005
Percent of Scans Mean ± SEM Percent of Scans Mean ± SEM Percent of Scans Mean ± SEM Friedman Test; Dunn’s Post Test
All (N = 18) 10.7 ± 1.9 16.2 ± 2.9 15.0 ± 4.3 χ2 = 0.886, df = 2, p = 0.642
ED (N = 10) 12.7 ± 2.7 22.2 ± 3.4 20.7 ± 6.7 χ2 = 3.200, df = 2, p = 0.222
LD (N = 8) 8.1 ± 2.6 8.6 ± 3.7 7.8 ± 3.8 χ2 = 0.467, df = 2, p = 0.792
M (N = 10) 10.7 ± 3.3 16.6 ± 4.5 21.6 ± 7.1 χ2 = 2.205, df = 2, p = 0.332
F (N = 8) 10.7 ± 1.8 15.6 ± 3.8 6.7 ± 1.6 χ2 = 3.677, df = 2, p = 0.159
AM (N = 7) 14.3 ± 4.0 22.6 ± 4.7 29.0 ± 8.7 χ2 = 2.571, df = 2, p = 0.305
MS1 (N = 5) 9.4 ± 1.6 21.0 ± 3.8 8.0 ± 1.8 χ2 = 7.600, df = 2, p = 0.024;
2003 vs. 2004: p < 0.05
MS2 (N = 6) 7.5 ± 3.0 4.6 ± 2.5 4.4 ± 1.7 χ2 = 3.364, df = 2, p = 0.186

ED/LD = early/late deprived; M = male, F = female; AM = all-male, MS = mixed-sex.