Table 3.
Comparison of Salt Lake (N=197) and San Francisco (N=131) Participants on Social Network and Support Measures
| Salt Lake |
San Francisco |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social Support Measures | M | Median | (SD) | M | Median | (SD) |
| Family Support Network | ||||||
| Network Size (#) | 14.7 | 10 | (21.8) | 6.8 | 5 | (6.8)***† |
| Ease of Contacta | 4.3 | (1.0) | 4.3 | (1.0) | ||
| Frequency of Helpb | 4.0 | (0.9) | 3.9 | (1.0) | ||
| Support Satisfactionc | 4.2 | (0.9) | 4.1 | (1.0) | ||
| Friendship Support Network | ||||||
| Network Size (#) | 14.5 | 8 | (25.8) | 8.8 | 6 | (7.9)* |
| Ease of Contacta | 3.9 | (1.0) | 4.3 | (0.9)**† | ||
| Frequency of Helpb | 3.4 | (1.0) | 3.8 | (1.0)**† | ||
| Support Satisfactionc | 3.8 | (1.1) | 4.2 | (0.9)* | ||
Notes: Between-group differences for “Network Size” were determined using the Mann-Whitney U test, given the skewed distribution on these variables. Between-group differences for all other variables were estimated with independent samples t-tests.
p<.05
p<.01
p<.001.
indicates that the between-group comparison remained significant after applying a Bonferroni Correction procedure (p<.002). Variables were measured with the following response options:
Ease of Contact: 5-point scale: 1= very difficult; 5= very easy
Frequency of Help: 5-point scale: 1 = never; 5= very often
Support Satisfaction: 5-point scale 1 = not at all satisfied; 5= very satisfied