Table 8.
Summary of group contrasts of testing the interaction of river and specialization cluster on place dependence
| Contrast | Group | M adj | t |
|---|---|---|---|
| DU river | Casual vs. intermediate | 2.97 | −0.35 |
| 3.03 | |||
| Casual vs. advanced | 2.97 | −2.30* | |
| 3.49 | |||
| Intermediate vs. advanced | 3.03 | −2.16* | |
| 3.49 | |||
| NU river | Casual vs. intermediate | 3.17 | −0.30 |
| 3.20 | |||
| Casual vs. advanced | 3.17 | 1.07 | |
| 2.25 | |||
| Intermediate vs. advanced | 3.20 | 1.11 | |
| 2.25 | |||
| SA river | Casual vs. intermediate | 2.95 | 3.30* |
| 2.64 | |||
| Casual vs. advanced | 2.95 | 1.45 | |
| 2.47 | |||
| Intermediate vs. advanced | 2.64 | 0.17 | |
| 2.47 | |||
| LY river | Casual vs. intermediate | 3.18 | 1.35 |
| 3.05 | |||
| Casual vs. advanced | 3.18 | 2.81* | |
| 2.50 | |||
| Intermediate vs. advanced | 3.05 | 2.32* | |
| 2.50 |
Madjadjusted mean place dependence
*p < .05