APA Guidelines for

Tables
The purpose of tables and figures in documents is to enhance
readers' understanding of the information in the document;
usually, large amounts of information can be communicated
more efficiently in tables or figures.
General guidelines
NECESSITY
• Tables and figures can be used quickly and efficiently to
present a large amount of information to an audience, but
visuals must be used to assist communication, not to use up
space
• Ask yourself this question first: Is the table or figure necessary?
For example, it is better to present simple descriptive statistics
in the text, not in a table.
RELATION OF TABLES OR FIGURES AND TEXT
Refer in the text to all tables and figures used and explain
what the reader should look for when using the table or
figure.

DOCUMENTATION
If you are using figures, tables and/or data from other
sources, be sure to gather all the information you will need
to properly document your sources.

INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE

Be sure to include an explanation of every abbreviation
(except the standard statistical symbols and abbreviations).
• ORGANIZATION, CONSISTENCY, AND COHERENCE

Number all tables sequentially as you refer to them in the

text (Table 1, Table 2, etc.), likewise for figures (Figure 1,
Figure 2, etc.). Abbreviations, terminology, and
probability level values must be consistent across tables
and figures in the same article. Likewise, formats, titles,
and headings must be consistent. Do not repeat the
same data in different tables.
ELEMENTS OF TABLES

• Number all tables with Arabic numerals sequentially. Do

not use suffix letters (e.g. Table 3a, 3b, 3c); instead,
combine the related tables.
• Each table must have a clear and concise title. Titles
should be written in italicized title case below the table
number, with a blank line between the number and the
title. When appropriate, you may use the title to explain
an abbreviation parenthetically.
Table 1
Comparison of Median Income of Adopted Children (AC)
v. Foster Children (FC)
Headings
• Keep headings clear and brief.
• There are several types of headings:
• Stub headings describe the left hand column, or stub
column, which usually lists major independent variables.
• Column headings describe entries below them, applying to
just one column.
• Column spanners are headings that describe entries below
them, applying to two or more columns which each have their
own column heading. Column spanners are often stacked on
top of column headings and together are called decked heads.
• Table Spanners cover the entire width of the table, allowing
for more divisions or combining tables with identical column
headings.
All columns must have headings, written in sentence case
and using singular language (Item rather than Items) unless
referring to a group (Men, Women). Each column’s items
should be parallel (i.e., every item in a column labeled “%”
should be a percentage and does not require the % symbol,
since it’s already indicated in the heading). Subsections
within the stub column can be shown by indenting headings
rather than creating new columns.
Body

• Entries should be center aligned unless left aligning them would

make them easier to read (longer entries, usually).

• Word entries in the body should use sentence case.

• Leave cells blank if the element is not applicable or if data were not
obtained; use a dash in cells and a general note if it is necessary to
explain why cells are blank.

• Numerals should be expressed to a consistent number of decimal

places that is determined by the precision of measurement. Never
change the unit of measurement or the number of decimal places in
the same column.
Notes
• General notes - explanations of abbreviations, symbols, etc.
• Probability notes provide the reader with the results of the
tests for statistical significance.
• Consistently use the same number of asterisks for a given alpha
level throughout your paper.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
• If you need to distinguish between two-tailed and one-tailed
tests in the same table, use asterisks for two-tailed p values
and an alternate symbol (such as daggers) for one-
tailed p values.
*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed. †p <.05, one-tailed.
††p < .01, one-tailed.
Borders
Tables should only include borders and lines that are
needed for clarity.

Do not use vertical borders, and do not use borders

around each cell. Spacing and strict alignment is typically
enough to clarify relationships between elements.
Table 1

Descriptive Statistics, Correlations and Reliability values

Mea S.D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
n .
1. Gender 0.2
1.93 -
6

2. Age 0.5 -
1.31 -
5 .163**
3. Relationshi 0.5 -
1.61 .085 -
p status 1 .613**
4. Number of 0.8
0.55 -
children 7 -.107 .671** -
.685**
(below 18)
5. Aged people
at home (60 0.8 -
0.78 -.047 .133* .205** -
or above) 5 .210**

6. Employmen 0.7
1.84 - - -
t status of 6 -.030 .507** -
.284** .346** .057
spouse
7. Fear of 0.7
2.22 .055 .163** -.094 .085 .101 .024 0.84
COVID-19 7

8. Resilience 0.7 -
2.40 -.122* .011 -.077 .013 .023 .059 0.86
1 .286**
9. Mental 0.7 - - - - .579*
3.65 0.9
Health 2 .086 .076 .005
.152** .161** .037 .259** *
1

N=323, **p<0.01, *p<0.05. S.D. Standard Deviation. Cronbach alpha values are presented in the diagonal.
From the correlation analysis, it is clear that fear of
Covid-19 is negatively correlated with resilience (r=-.286,
p < .01) and positive mental health (r=-.259, p < .01).
Resilience has a significant positive correlation with
positive mental health (r=.579, p < .01).
Rule of Thumb for Interpreting the Size of a Correlation Coefficient 4

Size of Correlation Interpretation

.90 to 1.00 (−.90 to −1.00) Very high positive (negative) correlation
.70 to .90 (−.70 to −.90) High positive (negative) correlation
.50 to .70 (−.50 to −.70) Moderate positive (negative) correlation
.30 to .50 (−.30 to −.50) Low positive (negative) correlation
.00 to .30 (.00 to −.30) negligible correlation
Regression table
Table 2

Regression of parenting styles on social and adaptive functioning

Variable B β SE

Constant 41.528 3.17

Mother’s .10 .13 .08

responsiveness

Mother’s control .29 .38 .18

Father’s .26 .40 .09

responsiveness

Parental control -.13 -.35 .09

R2 .21
• The regression analysis results of parenting style
dimensions, including mothers' responsiveness,
mothers' control, fathers' responsiveness, and parental
control as independent variables and SAF as a
dependent variable, is shown in Table 2. From the table,
it is found that 21% of the variance in SAF is predicted
by parenting style dimensions, namely mothers'
responsiveness, mothers' control, and fathers'
responsiveness (R2=.21, F(4, 274)=19.16, P<.001).
t table

Table 3

The difference in social and adaptive functioning based on gender

Boys Girls

Variables M SD M SD t(277) P Cohen’s d

SAF School performance

16.94 3.11 18.01 2.99 .004 .35
2.88

SAF Peer relationships 16.34 3.29 16.38 3.09 .10 .92 _

SAF Family relationships 2.37 3.07 20.30 2.58 .20 .83 _

SAF Home duties/self-care 17.89 3.32 19.11 2.96 3.22 .001 .03

Overall SAF 71.54 8.69 73.80 6.89 2.41 .01 .02

From Table 3, it is evident that there are significant gender differences in school

performance, home duties/self-care, and overall SAF. Girls reported higher school

performance (Girls; M=18.09, SD=2.99, Boys; (M=16.91, SD=3.11); t(277)=2.88)

with Cohen’s d value .35 (<.50) indicating a small effect size. Girls were also found

to perform higher in home duties/self-care (Girls; M=19.11, SD=2.96, Boys;

M=17.89, SD=3.32; t(277)=3.22), with Cohen’s d value .03 (<.50) indicating a small

effect size. In overall SAF, girls are higher than boys (Girls; M=73.80, SD=6.89;

Boys; M=71.54, SD=8.69; t(277)=2.41). The value of Cohen’s d was .02 (<.50),

which indicated a small effect size. Gender differences in peer relationships

(t(277)=.10, P>.05) and family relationships (t(277)=.20, P>.05) were found to be

non-significant.
Effect size
Effect size –tells how strong and significant the relationship is

Chi-square – Phi or Carmer’s V

Correlation – r value itself

t test – Cohen’s d (Calculate Cohen’s D-

https://www.socscistatistics.com/effe...)

Interpret Cohen’s d- https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

ANOVA – eta square

Table 7
Mean, Standard Deviation and One-way Analysis of variance of parent-child relationship
across place of residence
Rural Semi-Urban Urban F Multiple
Variable (1) (2) (3) (2,297 Comparisio
M SD M SD M SD ) n
Mother-Safe 13.42 2.94 13.64 3.54 12.70 3.57 1.93
Mother- 3.07 1 vs. 3
12.92 11.52 3.08 12.51 3.06 5.91*
Dependent 7 2 vs. 1
Mother- 14.31 2.97 13.87 2.99 13.81 3.09 0.80
Parentified
Mother- 11.09 2.94 10.46 3.42 10.65 3.65 0.98
Fearful
Mother- 11.89 2.86 11.35 3.64 11.04 3.18 1.63
Distant
Father-Safe 12.47 3.96 12.47 3.96 12.27 3.86 0.34
Father- 12.35 3.67 11.27 3.60 12.44 3.69 3.34* -
Dependent
Father- 13.41 3.85 13.13 2.99 12.85 3.44 0.61
Parentified
Father- 11.83 3.61 10.94 3.22 11.24 3.89 1.70
Fearful
Father- 11.29 3.30 11.89 4.07 10.60 3.46 3.00* 2 vs 3
Distant 3 vs 2
Parent-child
124.5 20.4 120.3 22.5 121.6 21.4
relationship 1.55
8 9 7 9 2 1
Total
Note *p <0.05
Table 7 shows the place of residence difference in the overall parental-child relationship and its

dimensions. Rural participants (M = 12.92, SD = 3.07) had higher scores in mother-dependent children (F

= 5.92, p<.05) than semi-urban participants (M = 11.52, SD = 3.08) and urban participants (M = 12.51,

SD = 3.06). Those from urban areas (M = 12.44, SD = 3.69) had higher scores in father-dependent

behaviors (F = 3.35, p<.05) than those from rural (M = 12.35, SD = 3.67) and semi-urban (M = 11.27, SD

= 3.60). Participants from semi-urban areas (M = 11.89, SD = 4.07) had higher scores in father distant (F

= 3.00, p>.05) than those from rural areas (M = 11.29, SD = 3.30) and the urban regions (M = 10.60, SD

= 3.46). The overall parent-child relationship (F = 1.55, p>.05), as well as other dimensions such as

mother safety (F=1.93, p>.05), mother parentified (t=0.80, p>.05), mother fearfulness (t=0.98, p>.05),

mother distance (F=1.63, p>.05), father safety (F=3.86, p>.05), father parentified (F=0.61, p>.05), and

father fearfulness (F=1.70, p>.05), showed no significant difference. Findings revealed no significant

difference in overall parental relationship (F = 1.55, p >.05) based on the place of residence of the

participants. Hence the hypothesis is not accepted.

•
Two-way Anova
• A two-way ANOVA was performed to analyze the effect of watering
frequency and sunlight exposure on plant growth.
•
• A two-way ANOVA revealed that there was not a statistically significant
interaction between the effects of watering frequency and sunlight
exposure (F(3, 32) = 1.242, p = .311).
•
• Simple main effects analysis showed that watering frequency did not
have a statistically significant effect on plant growth (p = .975).
•
• Simple main effects analysis showed that sunlight exposure did have a
statistically significant effect on plant growth (p < .000).