Sample Report: What a GetBayes Report Looks Like
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE: The study below is not real — it belongs to no real participants, institution or dataset. It was built end-to-end with fictional data solely to show the scope and format of a GetBayes report. Your own report is built the same way, with your own data.
We walk through a randomized controlled pilot study — set at an unnamed university's education unit — testing a study-skills program aimed at reducing exam anxiety. The point isn't the result; it's how the report presents it.
Who this example helps
Thesis and article authors who want to see the report format before sending data
Anyone wondering "what do the tables look like, how are effect sizes reported?"
Researchers who want to be sure the report they'll show their advisor or committee looks serious
Anyone who wants to see the process and output concretely before working with GetBayes
The fictional study's design
160 university students (80 program, 80 standard advising) were randomized; an 8-week structured study-skills and anxiety-management program was compared against standard academic advising. The primary endpoint is final exam score (0–100); secondary measures are a test-anxiety inventory score and change in term GPA.
149 participants (93.1%) completed the study — that figure and its attrition analysis are presented as a standalone note, exactly as in our real reports; when dropout doesn't differ meaningfully between groups, that's stated plainly.
Participant Characteristics (Sample Table)
Every real report opens with a Table 1: are the groups balanced at baseline or not — nothing gets compared until that's settled.
| Characteristic | Program (n=76) | Standard Advising (n=73) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), Mean (SD) | 20.4 (1.8) | 20.6 (1.7) | 0.48 |
| Female, n (%) | 49 (64.5%) | 44 (60.3%) | 0.59 |
| Year 1–2 students, n (%) | 31 (40.8%) | 28 (38.4%) | 0.76 |
| Baseline test-anxiety score, Mean (SD) | 58.2 (9.4) | 57.6 (9.9) | 0.71 |
| Baseline term GPA, Mean (SD) | 2.71 (0.52) | 2.68 (0.55) | 0.74 |
Primary Outcome: Final Exam Performance (Sample Table)
Table 2 gets to the number that matters: the between-group difference, confidence interval and effect size are reported together — a p-value on its own is never treated as sufficient.
| Group | n | Final Exam Score, Mean (SD) | Between-Group Difference | 95% CI | d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program | 76 | 74.8 (11.2) | — | — | — |
| Standard Advising | 73 | 67.4 (12.6) | +7.4 | 3.6; 11.2 | 0.52 |
Key Findings (Sample)
Final exam scores favored the program group by 7.4 points, a moderate effect size (d = 0.52; p = 0.003).
The program group showed an additional 9.8-point drop in test-anxiety inventory scores (d = −0.61; p < 0.001).
Change in term GPA did not differ significantly between groups (difference = +0.08; d = 0.15; p = 0.22) — a non-significant finding, reported exactly as it appears here.
Students attending 6+ sessions improved 4.1 points more on the final exam than those attending fewer — this dose-response pattern gets its own paragraph in the discussion.
What the report actually contains
Every number in the tables above is generated straight from the analysis code, not typed in by hand — that rule never changes, in this example or in a real delivery. What ships is three pieces: a branded PDF report, the same report as a Word (.docx) file, and — on request — a separate technical/notes document detailing the reasoning behind each method choice and any caveats.
The methods section states the reason for every test choice ("why ANCOVA, why this correction"); assumption checks (normality, homogeneity of variance) are summarized in a note ahead of the results tables. Non-significant findings aren't hidden — they're reported as they are, like the GPA result above.
Frequently asked questions
Is this a real study?
No. The institution, participant counts and every result above are entirely fictional; none of it is drawn from a real dataset. Its purpose is to show, concretely, what a GetBayes report looks like in format and rigor. Your real report is built the same way, with your own data.
Does the report only come as a PDF?
No. The standard delivery includes a branded PDF report and the same content as a Word (.docx) file; you can request an additional technical/notes document for your advisor or committee.
My study is much simpler than this — does it still come in this format?
Report scope scales with your study's size — a small single-comparison study gets a shorter report, a multivariable design gets a fuller one. The structure (justified methods, complete statistics, assumption checks) stays the same at every scale.
My field is different (engineering, business) — can you still help?
Yes. The example is from health and education, but we build the same report structure for any academic or organizational study with quantitative data.
If I send my data, can I see an example closer to my field?
During the free assessment, we can share a similarly anonymized example closer to your field on request.
Where do the numbers in the tables come from — can I trust them?
Every table and effect size is generated directly from the analysis code; nothing is typed in by hand or calculated mentally. That's a fixed rule for this example and for every real delivery.
Want to see your own report?
Tell us about your data and research question — within 24 hours we'll reply with a free assessment and a clear picture of what your report will look like.
Last updated: July 10, 2026