Skip to main content

Table 3 Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) on Stroop test

From: The role of inhibition capacities in the Iowa gambling test performance in young tattooed women

Stroop Adjusted mean F P
Tattooed Control
Overall
 Group    281 .97
 Smoking    1.111 .36
 Education    1.401 .19
Neutral RT
 Group 1031.40 (25.33) 1049.92 (25.33) .23 .62
 Smoking    .52 .47
 Education    .14 .70
Neutral SD
 Group 299.24 (17.19) 297.00 (17.19) .00 .93
 Smoking    1.28 .26
 Education    .01 .91
Neutral Errors
 Group .17 (.07) .27 (.07) .69 .40
 Smoking    3.42 .06
 Education    .08 .76
Congruent RT
 Group 926.80 (24.78) 952.49 (24.78) .47 .49
 Smoking    1.01 .31
 Education    .05 .81
Congruent SD
 Group 273.04 (20.40) 282.28 (20.40) .09 .76
 Smoking    1.78 .18
 Education    .32 .57
Congruent Errors
 Group .12 (.06) .21 (.06) .76 .38
 Smoking    1.02 .31
 Education    3.28 .07
Incongruent RT
 Group 1147.70 (28.12) 1164.86 (28.12) .16 .68
 Smoking    1.26 .26
 Education    .67 .41
Incongruent SD
 Group 334.84 (18.76) 329.18 (18.76) .04 .84
 Smoking    .17 .67
 Education    .36 .54
Incongruent Errors
 Group 1.97 (.36) 2.29 (.36) .34 .56
 Smoking    1.06 .30
 Education    94 .33
  1. Note. 1 Wilks’ Lambda F. Group = tattooed vs. non-tattooed women. * p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001