3. Performance

Table step 1 illustrates the fresh new prevalence of each and every of the dangers of the study, depending on the level of seriousness found. On the other hand, they shows the new reviews involving the distributions out of children towards additional threats. Complete, the players who demonstrated plenty of fish ilk mesaj nothing wrong varied ranging from % who’d no troubles which have tricky Websites play with or more to 83.4% who had no problems with on the web brushing. I remember that the variety of modest and serious troubles ranged ranging from cuatro% to have sexting and 17% for challenging Web sites use. 9% away from average/big problems plus cyberbullying, they achieved 13.7%. The frequencies based in the more levels of troubles was basically usually greater for females compared to males.

Table step 1

Incidence of each and every of the risks as the a purpose of the newest seriousness of your problem for the full decide to try 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 Table dos ).

Table 2

Distinctions as the a function of educational stage (1st–second, 3rd–next grades from CSE and you may Blog post-second Degree) on threats (letter = 3212, except for your situation off cyber relationships discipline which have letter = 1061).

Note: Meters = arithmetic indicate; SD = basic departure, F = Welch’s-F, p = significance; ? 2 = eta squared.

Desk 3 shows new correlations amongst the some threats. Them had self-confident and you can high correlations along, towards the matchmaking anywhere between cyberbullying victimization and you may cyber relationship victimization position away. Internet dangers which have a sexual part (on line grooming and you can sexting) were very synchronised. Generally speaking, the new correlations was in fact highest for boys in most of risks, except for brand new relationships between cyber relationships victimization and you may brushing and you can between difficult Web sites fool around with and cyberbullying victimization, online 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 cuatro merchandise the comorbidities one of the some Web sites risks related so you can personal interaction (cyberbullying victimization, cyber dating abuse victimization, sexting and online brushing). Just the players who complete every item regarding the threats related in order to victimization (letter = 1109) have been felt (we.age., removing in the data individuals who had no lover). Of kept users, sixty.7% displayed at least one of the analysed risks (letter = 674). The chance towards high personal frequency are cyberbullying victimization (%), followed closely by on the internet grooming. The most frequent two-exposure combinations were cyberbullying victimization-on the web brushing and you will cyberbullying-sexting. We emphasize the three-exposure combination of cyberbullying-sexting-brushing victimization. Finally, 5.49% of the victimized adolescents demonstrated all the risks conjointly.