All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Young People, Media Use, and Voter Turnout: An Analysis of the 2000 National Election Study
Unformatted Document Text:  Young Voters and Media Use 19 Table 2. Discriminant Analysis of Predictors of Young Voter Turnout Table 2-1. Eigenvalues Function Eigenvalue % of variance Cumulative % Canonical correlation 1 .618 a 100.0 100.0 .618 a. First 1 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis. Table 2-2. Wilks’s Lamda Test of Function(s) Wilks’ Lamda Chi-square df Sig. 1 .62 a 171.0 21 .000*** a. This model predicted 62% of variance in young voter turnout. *** p<.0001 Table 2-3. Classification Result Predicted turnout (N = 368) Actual turnout (N=368) Yes, I voted (predicted N= 249) No, I didn’t vote (predicted N=119) Yes, I voted (actual N=233) 203 (correctly predicted) 30 (errors) Original Count (raw numbers) No, I didn’t vote (actual N=135) 46 (errors) 89 (correctly predicted) Percentage Yes, I voted (100%) 87.1 (Correctly predicted) 12.9 (errors) No, I didn’t vote (100%) 34.1 (errors) 65.9 (correctly predicted) a. 79.3% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

Authors: Kim, Eunsong.
first   previous   Page 19 of 22   next   last



background image
Young Voters and Media Use
19
Table 2. Discriminant Analysis of Predictors of
Young Voter Turnout

Table 2-1. Eigenvalues

Function

Eigenvalue

% of variance

Cumulative %
Canonical
correlation
1 .618
a
100.0 100.0 .618
a. First 1 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.

Table 2-2. Wilks’s Lamda
Test of Function(s)
Wilks’ Lamda Chi-square
df
Sig.
1 .62
a
171.0
21
.000***
a. This model predicted 62% of variance in young voter turnout.
*** p<.0001

Table 2-3. Classification Result
Predicted turnout (N = 368)
Actual turnout
(N=368)
Yes, I voted
(predicted N= 249)
No, I didn’t vote
(predicted N=119)
Yes, I voted
(actual N=233)
203
(correctly predicted)
30
(errors)
Original Count
(raw numbers)
No, I didn’t vote
(actual N=135)
46
(errors)
89
(correctly predicted)
Percentage
Yes, I voted
(100%)
87.1
(Correctly predicted)
12.9
(errors)
No, I didn’t vote
(100%)
34.1
(errors)
65.9
(correctly predicted)
a. 79.3% of original grouped cases correctly classified.


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 19 of 22   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.