3. Results
Desk 1 depicts the frequency of every of your risks of eurodate indir the research, depending on the degree of severity discovered. Likewise, it shows the fresh new evaluations between the withdrawals out-of children on the other dangers. Full, the players exactly who showed nothing wrong varied ranging from % that has no troubles that have problematic Internet explore or over in order to 83.4% who had no troubles with on line brushing. I note that all of the moderate and major dilemmas varied anywhere between 4% to own sexting and you may 17% for problematic Internet play with. 9% away from moderate/significant problems and also in cyberbullying, it hit thirteen.7%. The fresh wavelengths based in the various other amounts of problems was always higher for girls compared to males.
Desk 1
Prevalence of each and every of your threats as the a function of this new seriousness of your own situation on full take to as well as sex.
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 ).
Table 2
Distinctions since a purpose of academic phase (1st–next, 3rd–fourth grades from CSE and you can Post-supplementary Education) regarding the risks (letter = 3212, except for happening out of cyber dating discipline that have n = 1061).
Note: Meters = arithmetic indicate; SD = practical departure, F = Welch’s-F, p = significance; ? 2 = eta squared.
Dining table step 3 reveals the new correlations involving the some risks. All of them had confident and significant correlations along, toward matchmaking anywhere between cyberbullying victimization and you will cyber dating victimization reputation away. Websites dangers with an intimate part (on the internet grooming and sexting) were very correlated. As a whole, the latest correlations was large for males for the majority of dangers, apart from the relationship anywhere between cyber dating victimization and you may grooming and anywhere between problematic Internet sites use and you will cyberbullying victimization, on the web brushing and sexting.
Desk 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.
Dining table 4 merchandise the comorbidities one of many certain Web sites risks relevant to help you personal correspondence (cyberbullying victimization, cyber matchmaking punishment victimization, sexting and online brushing). Only the people just who completed every item in regards to the risks associated to help you victimization (n = 1109) had been considered (i.e., reducing on analysis people who had no lover). Of one’s kept players, sixty.7% presented one or more of analysed risks (letter = 674). The risk on the large individual frequency is cyberbullying victimization (%), followed by on the internet grooming. The most prevalent a couple of-risk combinations was cyberbullying victimization-on the internet grooming and you may cyberbullying-sexting. We focus on the 3-chance mix of cyberbullying-sexting-brushing victimization. In the long run, 5.49% of one’s victimized teenagers shown all of the risks conjointly.