Assessing graduate screen production outputs in nineteen ...

FactorSub-groupNumberNMeanproductionlocationStd Dev F statistic P valueCountry Australia 25 0.086 0.512 0.044 0.836United 5 0.144 0.793KingdomState 1 5 0.275 0.832 0.439 0.8842 5 0.022 0.6103 4 0.003 0.6304 1 -0.0765 5 0.080 0.2496 5 0.066 0.2957 3 -0.221 0.8728 1 0.6749 1 0.707Institution 1 1 -0.570 0.532 0.8822 4 0.248 0.9593 1 0.2414 2 0.225 0.5915 1 0.3086 1 0.7037 1 -0.8578 1 -0.2589 1 -0.07610 2 -0.127 0.43511 1 0.63112 1 0.24613 2 0.230 0.54814 1 -0.47115 2 0.053 0.23216 1 0.67417 1 0.38218 1 0.70719 2 0.195 0.18920 1 -1.12321 1 -0.00222 1 0.194Table 8.2 Mean Production locations on the SPAS, F statistics and p values forCountry, State, and Institution of assessorsThe results in Table 8.2 indicate that there were no significant differences in meansbetween assessors from Australia and those from the United Kingdom, or amongstassessors from different States or Counties or Institutions. These results need to beinterpreted with care because several sub-groups were represented by only a singleassessor. Inspection of the mean locations, however, suggests State 7 assessors tobe the harshest, followed by the State 4. The most lenient assessors came from theUnited Kingdom (8 and 9). Within Australia, the most lenient were those from State1 and the harshest from State 4. Considering institutions, the assessor fromInstitution 20 was the harshest and the most lenient were based at Institution18 and6. However, as noted before, these differences are not statistically significant, thusindicating these factors are not important in determining the responses of differentassessors.Assessing graduate screen production outputs in nineteen Australian film schools113