Table 4.
Moderators of Sexual Frequency Effect Sizes (k = 16).
| All comparisons |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Study dimension and levela | Adjustedb d+ (95% CI) | β | |
| Human Development Index | −0.34*** | ||
| Low 0.35 | 0.45 (0.27, 0.62) | ||
| Medium 0.71 | 0.02 (−0.03, 0.07) | ||
| High 0.94 | −0.25 (−0.34, −0.16) | ||
| Mean age | −0.28*** | ||
| 15 years | 0.25 (−0.16, 0.34) | ||
| 42 years | −0.22 (−0.37, −0.06) | ||
| Condom skills training | 0.34*** | ||
| Absent | −0.10 (−0.16, −0.04) | ||
| Present | 0.14 (0.07, 0.21) | ||
Note. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; d+, weighted mean effect size; significance of the standardized regression coefficient is denote as
p<.05;
p<.01
p<.001.
The model was a weighted least-squares multiple regression, with study dimensions simultaneously entered as independent variables and the inverse variance as the weights, following fixed-effects assumptions. Positive effect sizes imply less sexual frequency efficacy for the intervention group relative to the comparison group adjusted for the other variables in the model. The model explains 38% of the variance, I2(3,12)=94.16 (95% CI=91.50, 95.99).
High and low values for moderator category reflect maximum and minimum values in sample.
Holding continuous factors constant at their mean, or, in the case of condom skills training, holding this factor constant through use of contrast coding.