How to report a non-significant regression?

#1
Hi guys,

For my final year research project, I have a few regression models with non-significant results.

I was just wondering what the standard APA protocol would be for reporting this? For now, I've just provided the F value and the model summary (R square and adjusted R square)in the text. I've then placed a table of the corresponding regression coefficients in the Appendix. Do you think this is enough, or should I explicitly report the beta values in the text?

I'm just trying to save as much words as possible I suppose, but it's not worth it if I'll end up being marked down for it!

Thanks :)
 
#2
are you submitting this as a manuscript or is this a class assignment?

As for reporting non-significant values, you report them in the same way as significant.

Something akin to-
Predictor x was found to be significant (B =, SE=, p=). Predictor z was found to not be significant (B =, SE=, p=).

I caution against using phrases that quantify significance. I.e. almost, nearly, very, strongly. Use qualifiers for effect sizes, not for p values.
 
#3
are you submitting this as a manuscript or is this a class assignment?

As for reporting non-significant values, you report them in the same way as significant.

Something akin to-
Predictor x was found to be significant (B =, SE=, p=). Predictor z was found to not be significant (B =, SE=, p=).

I caution against using phrases that quantify significance. I.e. almost, nearly, very, strongly. Use qualifiers for effect sizes, not for p values.
Thanks for the reply :)

It's for my undergraduate dissertation.

Well my project supervisor mentioned making a table of the Beta values (B, SE, p etc) and putting that in the Appendix (to save word space).
So I was just wondering whether the beta values need to still be explicitly referred to in the text, or whether I can just say that the model was non-significant (F values and R^2 and adjusted R^2), and then just say that all the predictors were non-significant and refer to the table in the Appendix. But you seem to think I should refer to them in the text?
 
#4
It all depends, if the various beta coefficients of your predictors were the focus of your research questions, then they should be discussed.

Here is a small excerpt from a manuscript I wrote recently-

"The results for the model containing the transformed variable Total Gifted Funding saw Total White (β=0.002, p<.001) and Total Hispanic (β=0.001, p<.001) students as significant predictors. Other ethnic variables were not significant predictors of Total Gifted Funding. Both Urban (β=-1.475, p=.005) and Rural (β=-1.409, p<.001) locales were found to be statistical significant predictors. In interpretation of both variables, it must be cautioned that locale variables were binary while ethnic variables were continuous. "

This paragraph was directly after a table detailing all the results.
 
#5
It all depends, if the various beta coefficients of your predictors were the focus of your research questions, then they should be discussed.

Here is a small excerpt from a manuscript I wrote recently-

"The results for the model containing the transformed variable Total Gifted Funding saw Total White (β=0.002, p<.001) and Total Hispanic (β=0.001, p<.001) students as significant predictors. Other ethnic variables were not significant predictors of Total Gifted Funding. Both Urban (β=-1.475, p=.005) and Rural (β=-1.409, p<.001) locales were found to be statistical significant predictors. In interpretation of both variables, it must be cautioned that locale variables were binary while ethnic variables were continuous. "

This paragraph was directly after a table detailing all the results.
Thanks for your reply, that was a big help :) I think I best put the coefficients in then, best to be on the safe side.