PHLT 8068 Week 7 Results Table and Figure Set Example

Five Displays That Each Say Something: A Table and Figure Set for a Nail Technician Survey, With Sentence Titles, Stated Denominators and Small Multiples on Shared Axes

Student Name

Walden University

PHLT 8068: Dissertation Seminar V

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Five Displays That Each Say Something: A Table and Figure Set for a Nail Technician Survey, With Sentence Titles, Stated Denominators and Small Multiples on Shared Axes

Design Rules for the Set

Each display in this set follows three rules. Its title is a sentence stating what the display shows, not a list of its variables. Its note gives the denominator and any exclusions, so a reader never has to search the text to learn who is counted. And it shows only what the results chapter needs; descriptive detail that no research question uses stays out. Kelleher and Wagener (2011) recommend designing each display around the message it must carry, and Gelman et al. (2002) argue that many tables in research articles would communicate better as graphs, which is why the hours and symptom results below appear as figures. APA style asks for brief, descriptive titles in title case (American Psychological Association, 2020); full-sentence titles stretch that guidance, so they were approved by the chair and kept under fifteen words. Every value shown is composite, invented to illustrate the displays.

Table 1

The table replaces a box diagram because two channels side by side are easier to compare in columns than in parallel boxes.

Table 1

Most Workers Lost Before the Interview Were Lost at the Salon Door

Note. Composite figures. The 37 salons whose owners declined are not counted in workers approached because their workers were never contacted. Analytic sample = complete interviews plus partial interviews with a complete symptom section.

Table 2

Only the four characteristics that differ across channels or enter a research question are shown; age, sex and pay type sit in the appendix table.

Table 2

Respondents in the Two Channels Differed Most in Language and Tenure

Note. Composite figures. Denominators are complete interviews in each channel; the full sample description appears in Appendix E.

Table 3

Table 3

Symptoms Were Less Common Where Station Ventilation Was in Use

Note. Composite figures. The outcome counts a symptom from the last four weeks only when the worker said it eased on days off. Each model holds constant the worker's age group, tenure, salon type and recruitment route; n = 257 for ventilation and 254 for hours.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Symptom Prevalence Rose Steadily With Weekly Hours

Note. Composite figures. Bars show prevalence; whiskers show 95% confidence intervals. n = 38, 52, 71 and 96 from left to right; three respondents with missing hours are excluded.

A bar chart with intervals was chosen over a line because the hours bands are categories, not a continuous scale.

Figure 2

The second figure repeats one small chart for each of the four symptom groups, on identical axes, so the reader compares shapes rather than decoding a legend. Tufte (2001) called this arrangement small multiples and argued that repeating a single design lets the eye do the comparison. Each panel uses the same hours bands and the same vertical scale, from 0 to 60 percent.

Figure 2

Panel A: Irritation Climbed Most Steeply With Hours

Figure 2

Panel B: Headache Doubled From the Lowest to the Highest Band

Figure 2

Panel C: Skin Problems Changed Little With Hours

Figure 2

Panel D: Breathing Symptoms Stayed Uncommon in Every Band

Note. Composite figures. Denominators by band are as in Figure 1. Intervals are omitted from the panels to keep them legible at small size and are given in Appendix Table D2.

What Was Left Out

A pie chart of languages and a table of every questionnaire item were drafted and dropped. Neither answered a research question, and both repeated information already in Table 2 or the appendix. Five displays carry the chapter; anything a reader needs beyond them is one appendix reference away.

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Gelman, A., Pasarica, C., & Dodhia, R. (2002). Let's practice what we preach: Turning tables into graphs. The American Statistician, 56(2), 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1198/000313002317572790

Kelleher, C., & Wagener, T. (2011). Ten guidelines for effective data visualization in scientific publications. Environmental Modelling & Software, 26(6), 822-827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.12.006

Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information (2nd ed.). Graphics Press.