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

StroopAdjusted meanFP
TattooedControl
Overall
 Group  281.97
 Smoking  1.111.36
 Education  1.401.19
Neutral RT
 Group1031.40 (25.33)1049.92 (25.33).23.62
 Smoking  .52.47
 Education  .14.70
Neutral SD
 Group299.24 (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
 Group926.80 (24.78)952.49 (24.78).47.49
 Smoking  1.01.31
 Education  .05.81
Congruent SD
 Group273.04 (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
 Group1147.70 (28.12)1164.86 (28.12).16.68
 Smoking  1.26.26
 Education  .67.41
Incongruent SD
 Group334.84 (18.76)329.18 (18.76).04.84
 Smoking  .17.67
 Education  .36.54
Incongruent Errors
 Group1.97 (.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