step three. Show
Table 1 portrays new frequency each and every of your risks of the analysis, according to the standard of seriousness located. Likewise, it reveals the newest evaluations involving the withdrawals from children for the various other threats. Complete, the participants exactly who displayed nothing wrong varied between % that has no problems which have tricky Sites fool around with or over to 83.4% that has no troubles having on the internet brushing. I keep in mind that the range of modest and you will significant issues ranged anywhere between 4% for sexting and you may 17% to have challenging Internet sites use. 9% from average/significant problems as well as in cyberbullying, they hit thirteen.7%. The latest wavelengths based in the various other levels of dilemmas was constantly higher for women compared to people.
Table step 1
Incidence each and every of the threats because a purpose of the new seriousness of condition to the overall attempt 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 dos ).
Table 2
Variations since a function of educational stage (1st–2nd, 3rd–next grades from CSE and you will Article-secondary Training) regarding the dangers (letter = 3212, with the exception of your situation of cyber relationships punishment that have letter = 1061).
Note: M = arithmetic suggest; SD = practical deviation, F = Welch’s-F, p = significance; ? 2 = https://datingranking.net/tr/sudy-inceleme/ eta squared.
Dining table 3 suggests the fresh correlations within various risks. Them got self-confident and you can significant correlations along, with the dating between cyberbullying victimization and you may cyber matchmaking victimization condition out. Sites risks that have an intimate parts (online grooming and you will sexting) was basically extremely correlated. Generally speaking, brand new correlations had been large to possess males for the majority of one’s threats, with the exception of this new matchmaking anywhere between cyber relationship victimization and you can brushing and you may anywhere between challenging Internet fool around with and you will cyberbullying victimization, online grooming and you can sexting.
Dining 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 gifts the new comorbidities among the many various Sites risks associated in order to private correspondence (cyberbullying victimization, cyber dating abuse victimization, sexting an internet-based grooming). Just the people which finished all the items concerning threats associated to victimization (n = 1109) was basically sensed (i.age., reducing on studies people that didn’t come with companion). Of left users, sixty.7% shown one of analysed threats (letter = 674). The risk to your higher private prevalence are cyberbullying victimization (%), followed closely by on the web grooming. The most widespread one or two-chance combos was in fact cyberbullying victimization-on the internet brushing and you may cyberbullying-sexting. I highlight the three-risk blend of cyberbullying-sexting-grooming victimization. Fundamentally, 5.49% of your victimized adolescents exhibited all threats conjointly.