Skip to main content
. 2023 May 4;59(5):883. doi: 10.3390/medicina59050883

Table 5.

Comparison between the two studied groups according to the situational motivation scale.

Situational Motivation Scale Phone Calls Group
(n = 16)
No Phone Calls Group
(n = 11)
U (p)
Pre
M ± SD
Post
M ± SD
Pre
M ± SD
Post
M ± SD
Intrinsic motivation 22.56 ± 7.04 19.19 ± 6.21 22.91 ± 3.83 19.73 ± 6.20 84 (0.865)
Z (p0) 1.838 (0.066) 1.684 (0.092)
Identified regulation 22.0 ± 5.69 19.75 ± 6.94 23.18 ± 4.53 22.0 ± 6.32 68.5 (0.342)
Z (p0) 1.162 (0.245) 0.409 (0.683)
External regulation 17.0 ± 5.30 15.06 1± 6.06 14.91 ± 6.04 13.45 ± 7.93 74 (0.512)
Z (p0) 1.166 (0.244) 1.186 (0.236)
Amotivation 6.0 ± 2.45 8.50 ±1 4.76 7.36 ± 4.97 10.36 ± 7.23 69 (0.368)
Z (p0) 1.694 (0.090) 1.130 (0.258)
SDI 38.13 ± 16.03 26.06 ± 19.68 39.36 ± 16.88 27.27 ± 20.66 84.5 (0.865)
Z (p0) 1.967 (0.049) 1.468 (0.142)

Note. SD: standard deviation; U: Mann–Whitney test; Z: Wilcoxon signed-rank test p0: p-value for comparing between pre and post in each group; p: p-value for comparing between the studied groups.