step 3. Efficiency
Dining table step one illustrates brand new prevalence each and every of the dangers of the research, with regards to the amount of seriousness located. While doing so, they shows the fresh new reviews between your withdrawals out of girls and boys into some other threats. Total, the participants which shown no problem varied between % who’d no troubles with tricky Internet have fun with or more to 83.4% who’d no problems which have online grooming. I note that the range of average and significant problems ranged anywhere between cuatro% for sexting and you may 17% getting tricky Sites use. 9% off moderate/really serious difficulties plus in cyberbullying, they attained thirteen.7%. Brand new wavelengths found in the other levels of problems was basically always higher for girls than for boys.
Dining table step one
Frequency of each of dangers as a purpose of the latest seriousness of your situation into the overall attempt and of intercourse.
In this regard, significant differences were also found between boys and girls in the mean total scores of cyberbullying victimization (Welch’s t = ?2.02, p < 0.043, d = 0.07), online grooming (Welch's t = ?3.51, p < 0.001, d = 0.12) and problematic Internet use (Welch's t = ?2.07, p < 0.039, d = 0.07). In these cases, the mean scores were higher for girls than for boys. There were no significant differences in the rest of the risks: cyber dating abuse victimization (Welch's t = ?1.9, p < 0.058, d = 0.12) and sexting (Welch's t = 0.94, p < 0.410, d = 0.03).
Regarding the type of school (private and public), significant differences were only found in the risks of online grooming (t = ?3.37, p < 0.001, d = 0.13) and sexting (t = 3.8, p < 0.001, d = 0.15). The mean scores were higher in public schools than in private schools in both cases.
In terms of the educational stage (1st–2nd grade of CSE, 3rd–4th grade of CSE and Post-secondary Education), statistically significant differences were found for the risks of cyberbullying victimization (p < 0.002), online grooming (p < 0.001), sexting (p < 0.001) and problematic Internet use (p < 0.001). The scores were higher in 3rd–4th grades, except for online grooming victimization, where higher scores were found in Post-secondary Education (see Dining table dos ).
Variations because the a function of informative phase (1st–second, 3rd–last grades out-of CSE and you may Post-secondary Studies) throughout the threats (letter = 3212, with the exception of the scenario out-of cyber relationships punishment having n = 1061).
Note: Meters = arithmetic indicate; SD = standard deviation, F = Welch’s-F, p = significance; ? 2 = eta squared.
Dining table 3 shows the fresh correlations amongst the certain risks. All of them got self-confident and you will significant correlations along, with the relationships anywhere between cyberbullying victimization and you will cyber matchmaking victimization status aside. Websites risks having a sexual parts (online grooming and you may sexting) was indeed highly correlated. Generally speaking, the latest correlations were large to have men in farmers dating site nasÄ±l Ã§alÄ±ÅŸÄ±r? most of the threats, with the exception of the fresh dating between cyber relationship victimization and you may brushing and you will anywhere between problematic Internet sites use and you will cyberbullying victimization, on line grooming and you will sexting.
Table step 3
Note: The correlations for boys are shown below the diagonal and for girls above it. All correlations are significant at p < 0.001. M = arithmetic mean; SD = standard deviation.
Desk 4 presents the comorbidities among certain Websites dangers relevant in order to private correspondence (cyberbullying victimization, cyber matchmaking discipline victimization, sexting and online brushing). Just the users who accomplished every item concerning the risks relevant to help you victimization (letter = 1109) was considered (i.elizabeth., removing regarding the research people that had no lover). Of leftover people, sixty.7% shown one or more of analysed dangers (letter = 674). The risk on the highest individual frequency try cyberbullying victimization (%), accompanied by online brushing. The most common two-risk combinations was cyberbullying victimization-on the web grooming and you will cyberbullying-sexting. We emphasize the 3-chance combination of cyberbullying-sexting-grooming victimization. In the end, 5.49% of the victimized teens showed all risks conjointly.