Skip to main content
. 2012 Jun 6;12:404. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-404

Table 2.

Baseline characteristics of the sample

Mean (s.d.) unless stated
  
 Whole sample
 Responders only§
  Non-Responders (n=2355) Responders (n=1419) Group difference Intervention group (n=532) Control group (n=887)
Child age (years)
 8.25 (1.85)
 8.34 (1.83)
 t(3707)=-1.5, p=0.01
 8.23 (1.86)
 8.42 (1.80)
Parent age (years)
 37.44 (6.23)
 39.72 (6.01)
 t(2979)=-10.9, p<0.001**
 38.99 (6.18)
 40.16 (5.87)
Parent BMI
 25.14 (4.71)
 24.45 (4.41)
 t(3035)=4.3, p<0.001**
 25.12 (4.98)
 24.05 (3.98)
Child gender, n (%)
  
  
  
  
  
 Male
 1189 (50.6)
 717 (50.6)
 X2(1)=0.0, p=1.0
 268 (50.4)
 449 (50.7)
 Female
 1160 (49.4)
 700 (49.4)
  
 264 (49.6)
 436 (49.3)
Ethnicity, n (%)
  
  
  
  
  
 White
 1667 (75.7)
 1164 (82.7)
 X2(1)=59.1,
 422 (79.8)
 742 (84.4)
 Non-white
 663 (24.3)
 244 (17.3)
 p<0.001**
 107 (20.2)
 137 (15.6)
Parent education, n (%)
  
  
  
  
  
 University
 695 (35.2)
 605 (43.2)
 X2(1)=62.0,
 177 (33.8)
 428 (48.7)
 Non-university
 1592 (64.8)
 797 (56.8)
 p<0.001**
 347 (66.2)
 450 (51.3)
Importance diet (1-5)+
 4.50 (0.75)
 4.61 (0.63)
 t(3389)=-4.8, p<0.001**
 4.58 (0.68)
 4.63 (0.59)
Importance activity (1-5)+
 4.47 (0.71)
 4.56 (0.60)
 t(3376)=-3.9, p<0.001**
 4.52 (0.67)
 4.58 (0.55)
Ease diet (1-5)+
 3.67 (0.96)
 3.62 (0.97)
 t(3709)=1.5, p=0.1
 3.66 (1.01)
 3.60 (0.95)
Ease physical (1-5)+
 3.90 (0.89)
 3.81 (0.92)
 t(2856)=3.0, p=0.003**
 3.84 (0.90)
 3.79 (0.93)
Rating of diet adequacy, n (%)
  
  
  
  
  
 Yes
 1426 (63.2)
 956 (67.5)
 X2(1)=17.9, p<0.001**
 363 (68.4)
 593 (67.0)
 No
 925 (36.8)
 460 (32.5)
  
 168 (31.6)
 292 (33.0)
Rating of activity adequacy, n (%)
  
  
  
  
  
 Yes
 1605 (70.2)
 1040 (73.4)
 X2(1)=11.3,
 388 (73.2)
 652 (73.6)
 No 746 (29.8) 376 (26.6) p=0.001** 142 (26.8) 234 (26.4)

**p < 0.01; §Sample used for main analyses; +Higher score indicates a higher rating of importance or ease.