Table 2 Three-way ANOVA results for all responses.

From: Eyestrains among smartphone users while watching videos in Taipei MRT carriages: a comparison between sitting and standing postures

Variables

Responses

MS

F

p-value

Power

Sex

CFF reduction

2.08

1.19

0.276

0.192

Visual fatigue score

145.26

12.14

< 0.01**

0.934

Viewing distance

3400.33

193.30

< 0.001***

1.000

Posture

CFF reduction

35.88

20.53

< 0.001***

0.995

Visual Fatigue score

382.51

31.98

< 0.001***

1.000

Viewing distance

1150.52

65.40

< 0.001***

1.000

Time

CFF reduction

66.51

38.05

< 0.001***

1.000

Visual fatigue score

772.01

64.54

< 0.001***

1.000

Viewing distance

468.75

26.65

< 0.001***

0.999

Sex × Posture

CFF reduction

24.08

13.78

< 0.001***

0.958

Visual fatigue score

109.51

9.16

0.003**

0.853

Viewing distance

841.69

47.85

< 0.001***

1.000

Sex × Time

CFF reduction

1.33

0.76

0.384

0.140

Visual fatigue score

13.55

1.13

0.289

0.185

Viewing distance

2.08

0.12

0.731

0.064

Posture × Time

CFF reduction

1.51

0.86

0.355

0.152

Visual fatigue score

64.17

5.37

0.022*

0.635

Viewing distance

82.69

4.70

0.031*

0.578

Sex × Posture × Time

CFF reduction

6.75

3.86

0.051

0.489

Visual fatigue score

3.26

0.27

0.603

0.081

Viewing distance

9.19

0.52

0.471

0.111

  1. Note CFF, critical flicker fusion frequency; MS, mean square; F, F-value; In the analyses, all degrees of freedom = 1; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001).
Back to article page