219
cognitive style gap (P=-.31), gender (p=-.21) and age (P=.22). Of these three independent
variables, sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap was most important in explaining
the dependent variable. The model provided evidence that 21 year-old female students
with an innovative 5-point sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap with the faculty
member in Class C had an average total stress score of 3.20 points lower than the same
students with no sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap with this faculty member.
The total stress scale had an 88-point range. The data suggests that controlling for age
and gender in Class C, students with higher innovative sufficiency of originality
cognitive style gap with this adaptive faculty member exhibited lower levels of stress.
Findings from Class C indicated that as student sufficiency of originality cognitive style
gap moved from adaptiveness to innovativeness students have decreasing levels of total
stress while controlling for age and gender. The fitted model had an adjusted R2 of .13
signifying that 13% of the variance of stress in Class C was from these three variables
(p<.05). See Table 4-68 for the unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant), and
standardized coefficient (0).
Table 4-68. Class C Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
Stress (n=56)
Model
Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. F Sign.
(Constant) 19.51 30.40 0.64 .52 3.76 .02
Sufficiency of originality
gap -0.64 0.27 -.31 -2.35 .02
Gender -6.49 4.31 -.21 -1.50 .14
Age 2.07 1.23 .22 1.68 .10
Note. Adjusted R2=. 13
Also in Class C, total student motivation was regressed with the independent
variables of efficiency style gap (P=-.18), gender (P=.33) and age (P=.20). Of the three
variables, gender was most important in explaining student motivation in Class C.