| Perceived frequency of misbehavior | Perceived impact of misbehavior |
---|
Clusters added1 | Index of expl. var0 | Cum.explained variance1 | Diff. model fit2 (df) | Signif. model fit3 | Expl. var0 | Cum. explained variance1 | Diff. model fit2 (df) | Signif. model fit3 |
---|
Individual factorsa | 6.74% | 6.74% | 74.1 (6) | <.001 | 1.18% | 1.18% | 18.1 (6) | .001 < p < .01 |
Climate factorsb | 22.22% | 31.64% | 358.2 (7) | <.001 | 14.10% | 15.66% | 205.7 (7) | <.001 |
Publication factorsc | 15.85% | 34.21%* | 32.5 (3) | <.001 | 12.28% | 18.42%* | 37.6 (3) | <.001 |
- 0 = this is the explained variance when only one group of factors is analyzed, i.e. just the climate factors explain 22.22% of variance perceived frequency of research misbehaviors
- 1 = the explained variance here is the cumulatively explained variance. Since the models are hierarchical, factors are added consecutively, i.e. the explained variance is 31.64% when both individual as well as climate factors are added to the model
- 2 = difference in model fit, model fit here is the difference between the − 2 Log likelihood of the previous model, i.e. 74 is the difference between the intercept-only model and the model with individual factors added, etc.
- 3 = significance of model fit is contrasted with the previous model; the row above or a model with no parameters (vs. individual factors)
- a = gender, academic rank and disciplinary field, b = SOURCE subscales, c = PPQr subscales
- * Note that the explained total is less than the sum of its parts because there is some overlap in the variance that publication and climate factors explain