Table 2.
Impact of a set of predictors on Stress Perception parameters.
| Overall Consistency Score | Duration | Intensity | Pitch | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | F(1,29) = 0, p = 0.495, η2 = 0 | |||
| Age × Group | F(1,29) = 1.904, p = 0.178, η2 = 0.062 | |||
| CoSiMo | F(1,29) = 5.723, p = 0.012, η2 = 0.165 | F(1,29) = 4.772, p = 0.019, η2 = 0.141 | F(1,29) = 0.028, p = 0.434, η2 = 0.001 | F(1,29) = 3.139, p = 0.043, η2 = 0.098 |
| CoSiMo × Group | F(1,29) = 0.805, p = 0.377, η2 = 0.027 | F(1,29) = 0.565, p = 0.458, η2 = 0.019 | F(1,29) = 1.391, p = 0.248, η2 = 0.046 | F(1,29) = 0.059, p = 0.809, η2 = 0.002 |
| SR | F(1,28) = 0.009, p = 0.463, η2 = 0 | |||
| SR × Group | F(1,28) = 0.513, p = 0.48, η2 = 0.018 |
CoSiMo, Morphosyntax. SR, Sentence Repetition. P-values for main effects are one-tailed in the expected direction (the younger, the worse the performance; the worse the performance on the predictor, the worse the performance on stress perception); p-values from interactions are two-tailed. Significant effects are reported in bold. Effect sizes are reported as Eta-squared (η2).