APA 7 Results Section Example (Annotated, Copy-Ready)

Individual sentences are easy to find; a whole Results section that hangs together is not. Below is a complete, short APA 7 Results section for a simple study, followed by notes on why each part is there. Every number in it comes from the same dataset, so you can see how the descriptive statistics, the tests and the table fit together.

The study: 75 adults were randomly assigned to a low-carb, low-fat or Mediterranean diet for 12 weeks. The outcome was weight loss (kg); adherence to the diet (0 to 100%) was also recorded. Hypothesis 1: weight loss differs between diets. Hypothesis 2: adherence is related to weight loss.

The Results section

Results

Participants and Descriptive Statistics

All 75 participants (44 women, 58.7%) completed the study; their ages ranged from 19 to 68 years (M = 42.12, SD = 10.44). Each diet group included 25 participants. Mean weight loss was 6.07 kg (SD = 2.32) on the low-carb diet, 4.38 kg (SD = 2.43) on the low-fat diet and 6.24 kg (SD = 2.05) on the Mediterranean diet (Table 1). Mean adherence was 83.59% (SD = 13.83).

Assumption Checks

Shapiro-Wilk tests indicated that weight loss did not depart from normality in any group (all Ws ≥ .96, all ps ≥ .525), and Levene's test indicated equal variances, F(2, 72) = 0.13, p = .876.

Weight Loss by Diet

A one-way ANOVA showed a significant effect of diet on weight loss, F(2, 72) = 5.10, p = .009, η² = .12. Tukey's HSD tests showed that participants on the low-fat diet lost significantly less weight than those on the low-carb diet, p = .028, 95% CI of the difference [0.15, 3.23], and the Mediterranean diet, p = .014, 95% CI [0.32, 3.39]. The low-carb and Mediterranean diets did not differ significantly, p = .964. Hypothesis 1 was supported.

Adherence and Weight Loss

Adherence was strongly and positively correlated with weight loss, r(73) = .64, p < .001, 95% CI [.48, .76]. Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Table 1

Weight Loss (kg) by Diet

Note. Weight loss over 12 weeks. F(2, 72) = 5.10, p = .009, η² = .12.

Why each part is there

1. Participants first. The reader needs N, exclusions and the basic sample description before any test. (Some papers put this in the Method; either is accepted, but do it once.)
2. Descriptive statistics before tests. Means and SDs give the tests something to refer to. See how to report descriptive statistics.
3. Assumption checks, briefly. One or two sentences, and what you did if one failed. See how to check statistical test assumptions.
4. One subsection per hypothesis, with the test, its statistic, df, exact p and effect size, then follow-ups. See how to report a one-way ANOVA and post hoc tests.
5. "Hypothesis 1 was supported." A plain statement of the result, without interpretation.
6. A table for the numbers the text does not need to repeat. See how to format APA tables.

Mistakes reviewers catch

• Interpreting in the Results. "This suggests that low-fat diets are less effective because..." belongs in the Discussion.
• Repeating every table value in the text. Refer to the table and report only the key numbers.
• Missing effect sizes. Every test needs one.
• p values without a test. "The groups differed (p = .009)" is incomplete; give F, both df and η².
• Headings that don't follow APA levels. Level 1 for "Results" (bold, centred); Level 2 for subsections (bold, flush left).

Let KyroStat do the write-up for you

KyroStat runs the analysis plan on your data and writes the Results section in this structure, with every number computed from your spreadsheet and the tables formatted in APA 7.

Frequently asked questions

How long should a Results section be? As long as the analyses require and no longer. Each planned test needs its sentence; detail goes in tables.

Do I report non-significant results? Yes, with the same statistics, and without calling them "trends". See how to report p values.

Should I use subheadings? Yes, when there are several analyses: one per hypothesis or research question makes the section easy to follow.