Using and making tables in Word and APA style:

Note: APA style manual starting on page 120 for more details.

The basics:

Step 1: determine the amount of data that the reader needs to understand the discussion

Step 2: decide whether that data is best presented in the text or a table

Why use a table (or a graph)?

• To help explain points, to simplify the data, make comparisons easier.
• They are efficient, allowing the researcher to present a large amount of data in a small space.

  But, don’t use too many.
  

  • can make reading the paper hard, disjointed
  • hard for the reader to identify the important comparisons without enough discussion
  • can make typesetting hard
What goes into a table?

Tables usually contain quantitative data (numbers, statistical summaries [e.g., ANOVA results]),
but sometimes they may have text (e.g., presenting an example of the stimulus materials used in the different conditions of a factorial design)

Table 1

Experiment design and sample stimuli.


		Meaning
		Same	Different
Syntax	Same	kick the bucket buy the farm	kick the bucket shoot the breeze
	Different	kick the bucket give up the ghost	kick the bucket throw in the towel

If quantitative, then make sure that the relevant comparisons are easily seen at a glance.

e.g., readers can compare across rows, or down columns


providing row/column averages saves them the trouble of doing some math

Some APA Table basics:

Numbers in tables: use standard arabic numbers

Titles: give each table a brief, but useful title

Headings: establish the logic of the table, should be short but useful

Notes: general notes — explains or qualifies info in the table

Specific note — refers to a particular column, row, or cell

Probability note — gives level of significance

Consider the following passage of text and compare it with the same data presented as a table. Which is easier to understand?
(this example is taken from the APA style manual):

The mean final errors (with standard deviations in parentheses) for the Age x Level of Difficulty interaction were .05 (.08), .05 (.07), and .11 (.10) for the younger participants and .14 (.15), .17 (.15), and .26 (.21) for the older participants at low, moderate, and high levels of difficulty, respectively.

Table 2