Assessing graduate screen production outputs in nineteen ...

highest.Factor Sub-group N Mean location Std dev F statistic P value(logits)State 1 5 66.602 5.461 3.127 0.0182 14 72.440 9.0593 9 71.047 5.9564 4 63.133 3.6835 9 75.758 5.0666 4 77.767 5.896Institution 1 3 60.423 14.839 3.440 0.0032 5 66.602 5.4613 4 69.087 6.7964 7 73.118 2.4765 3 79.476 2.6466 4 76.767 3.2287 3 73.221 5.5908 4 72.763 5.5149 5 65.013 5.27710 3 79.511 5.82211 2 71.705 7.23212 2 76.169 4.735Year 1 1 66.179 - 0.937 0.4922 3 76.904 0.5953 4 70.666 9.2014 10 71.914 7.9095 3 74.495 3.9626 7 66.008 11.3117 9 71.243 5.1058 5 73.577 5.858Duration 1 2 74.433 2.687 0.278 0.9222 18 71.554 6.7683 12 71.073 11.2294 8 71.822 5.9185 2 77.467 0.6606 3 70.924 4.666Gender Male 21 70.789 8.593 0.722 0.400ModalityFemale 24 72.727 6.696Table 8.10 Mean percentages (rescaled/moderated) for Productions by State,Institution and Year in which produced and by Duration of Production and GenderModalityThe results in Table 8.10 show that there were significant differences in the meanoverall percentages (original) assigned to Productions according to State andInstitution but not according to Year, Duration or Gender Modality. State 5 and State6 received the highest percentages and the State 4 and State 1 the lowest.university 5 and University 10 received the highest marks and university 1 thelowest. These results are similar, though not always identical, to those for the SPAmean locations.Assessing graduate screen production outputs in nineteen Australian film schools123