### Table 4 Ranges and Means for Independent Variables by Subsequent Referral Group Subsequent Referral Groups Referred (N=64) Not Referred (N=182)

"... In PAGE 17: ... The results of this analysis are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Table4 presents the means and ranges for the five mitigating variables with interval data. In addition, the difference in the means of the two groups for each of the variables was tested for significance (p lt;=.... ..."

### TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES, GROUPED BY CATEGORIES Category Measurement Variable Item Code in SPSS Item Measure Description Scale

### Table 1: Average contribution and standard deviation of each independent subject group, partners groups (P1 to P10) and strangers groups (S1 to S6), ordered with respect to the average contribution level.

"... In PAGE 9: ...05) in the strangers condition. To show that this difference in the contribution levels is statistically significant, consider Table1 . The second column of this table presents, for each independent subject group, the average contribution to the public good over all 25 repetitions.... In PAGE 10: ... We conclude that partners significantly tend to contribute more in the first period than strangers. From Table1 it can also be observed that average contributions to the public good vary more among the independent partners groups than among the independent strangers groups. To demonstrate, we consider for each independent partners group the absolute deviation of its average contribution from the grand average of 4.... In PAGE 10: ...90. These values are reported in column 3 of Table1 . Applying a Mann-Whitney U test, we can reject the null hypothesis of no difference at the 5 percent level (two-sided test).... In PAGE 10: ...3 Having observed significantly more variation among the contributions of independent partners groups than among the contributions of independent strangers groups, we now ask whether the variation within the partners groups is different from the variation within the strangers groups. Column 4 of Table1 shows for each independent subject group the standard deviation of contributions to the public good. Another interesting measure of variation within a 3 For further evidence, we apply a Moses test for the hypothesis that the average contributions of partners groups are more extreme than those of the strangers groups.... In PAGE 11: ... 8 subject group is presented in column 5 of Table1 . It is a measure of stability of the individual decisions.... ..."

### Table 2. Average time in minutes for the executed tasks, namely taking into account only the accomplished tasks. * indicates the tasks that present incomplete executions. The differences between the average of groups A and B are not significant (p gt; 0.05) at the Mann-Whitney nonparametric test for independent groups.

2005

"... In PAGE 10: ... As shown in Table 3 the usability was judged average and the majority of the participants enjoyed the system. The average execution time reported in Table2... In PAGE 11: ...confirmed by qualitative data and partially by quantitative data. In fact, the differences between the averages of the two groups shown in Table2 are not significant. The nonparametric test was not sensitive enough for getting a difference between the execution times of the two groups.... In PAGE 11: ... On the other hand, the animation could not be the right treatment for inducing a partial and quick comprehension of the CBR cycle. The data of Task 3 (considering the latency for the incomplete tasks not taken in account in Table2 ) present the biggest difference between the two groups: 3.8 minutes for the group A vs.... ..."

### Table 5 Frequencies and Percentages for Independent Variables by Subsequent Referral Group Subsequent Referral Groups Referred (N=64) Not Referred (N=182) Mitigating Variables

"... In PAGE 18: ... Table5 presents the frequencies and percentages of the groups for each of the 7 categorical variables. For youths with a referral during the follow-up period: a) 33% were female, compared to 29% for those with no subsequent referrals; b) 41% were black, compared to 32% for those with no subsequent referrals; c) 67% came from single parent homes, compared to 50% for those with no subsequent referrals and; d) 77% had a prior offense, compared to 50% for those with no subsequent referrals.... ..."

### Table 4.Percentage of each skill group who suggested an independent strategy for each type of problem

### Table 5: Independent samples t-test results for comparing of group performances in terms of the

"... In PAGE 18: ...Table 5: Independent samples t-test results for comparing of group performances in terms of the defects carried forward from the individual preparation to the group review, between the experiments, with and without normalisations Hypothesis 2 is also supported ( Table5 ). When normalisation is not applied, the EffCF means for both groups are significantly different, by 18.... ..."

### Table 4: Independent samples t-test results for comparing interacting group performance between

"... In PAGE 17: ...Table 4: Independent samples t-test results for comparing interacting group performance between experiments, with and without normalisations Hypothesis 1 is supported ( Table4 ). When normalisation is not applied, the mean number of defects reported by the interacting group that employ process roles (mean 2.... ..."

### Table 1: Overall tag usage statistics by experimental group. Note that the tags column overall total is smaller than the sum of the groups, because two groups might independently use the same tag. group users taggers tags tag applications

"... In PAGE 4: ... We collected usage data from January 12, 2006 through February 13, 2006. Table1 lists basic usage statistics overall and by experimental group. During the experiment, 3,366 users logged into MovieLens, 635 of whom applied at least one tag.... In PAGE 4: ...) 3.1 Metrics As shown in Table1 , basic usage metrics differed widely between experimental groups. However, these differences are not statistically significant due to effects from power taggers.... ..."

### Table 1: For each sensor group and several words, the cells of the table show the probability of making an error in rejecting the null hypothesis that occurrences of the word and values in the sensor group are independent.

"... In PAGE 7: ... Recall that a sensor group is semantically associated with a word when the mutual information between occurrences of the word and values in the sensor groups are statistically signifi- cant. Table1 shows the a25 values for the mutual informa- tion for a number of combinations of words and sensor groups. Note from the first column that it is clear that the meaning of the word red is grounded in the a0 a3 a10a9a18a11 sen- sor group.... ..."