step three. Efficiency
Dining table 1 depicts the newest prevalence of each of one’s dangers of the research, depending on the level of seriousness discover. On the other hand, they suggests the new comparisons between the distributions from girls and boys towards various other dangers. Overall, the players who presented nothing wrong ranged ranging from % that has no troubles with challenging Sites explore or over so you’re able to 83.4% who’d no troubles with on the web grooming. We keep in mind that the range of reasonable and you may major troubles varied between cuatro% to possess sexting and you may 17% having difficult Internet play with. 9% from reasonable/significant dilemmas and in cyberbullying, they achieved thirteen.7%. This new frequencies found in the additional levels of trouble have been constantly greater for females than for guys.
Table step one
Prevalence of each of the dangers as the a purpose of the newest severity of one’s state to the full decide to try and of gender.
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 Desk 2 ).
Differences because a purpose of educational phase (1st–2nd, 3rd–4th levels regarding CSE and you may Article-supplementary Training) regarding the risks (letter = 3212, apart from the fact out-of cyber relationship punishment with letter = 1061).
Note: Yards = arithmetic indicate; SD = important departure, F = Welch’s-F, p = significance; ? dos = eta squared.
Desk step 3 shows the fresh new correlations amongst the certain dangers. Them had positive and you may extreme correlations together, on the dating anywhere between cyberbullying victimization and you may cyber relationship victimization status aside. Internet sites dangers having an intimate component (online brushing and you will sexting) was in fact highly coordinated. Typically, the fresh new correlations was high having men for the majority of dangers, except for the newest relationships between cyber relationships https://datingranking.net/tr/indiancupid-inceleme/ victimization and grooming and between challenging Websites explore and you may cyberbullying victimization, on the web brushing and you may sexting.
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.
Dining table 4 merchandise the latest comorbidities one of several some Websites dangers associated in order to personal interaction (cyberbullying victimization, cyber dating abuse victimization, sexting and online grooming). Only the professionals who completed every item concerning risks relevant so you can victimization (n = 1109) was indeed sensed (i.e., reducing regarding the study those who had no partner). Of left users, sixty.7% shown one of one’s analysed risks (letter = 674). The chance into the highest personal prevalence is cyberbullying victimization (%), followed by on the internet grooming. The most prevalent a few-exposure combos have been cyberbullying victimization-online grooming and cyberbullying-sexting. We stress the 3-chance mix of cyberbullying-sexting-brushing victimization. Finally, 5.49% of one’s victimized teenagers displayed the risks conjointly.