Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jun 3.
Published in final edited form as: J HIV AIDS Soc Serv. 2013 Jun 3;12(2):146–159. doi: 10.1080/15381501.2013.768949

Table 2. Between-Arm Comparisons of ARRM-Related Outcomes Pre-Intervention.

Intervention Group Control Group
p1 N Mean % N Mean %
ARRM Stage I Variable
 Knowledge (Protective/Protection Function) .583 131 5.69 -- 133 5.79 --
 Knowledge (Living with HIV/STI) .977 131 3.76 -- 133 3.76 --
 Perceived HIV risk2 .119 131 -- 60.3 133 -- 50.4
 Perceived STI risk2 .325 131 -- 61.8 133 -- 55.6
ARRM Stage II Variable
 Condom attitudes (Usage/Importance)3 .236 97 3.28 -- 133 3.36 --
 Condom attitudes (Protective Function)3 .433 98 3.48 -- 133 3.55 --
 Peer norms (Situational) .738 118 3.36 -- 117 3.33 --
 Peer norms (Behavioral) .648 96 3.40 -- 93 3.35 --
 Intentions to use condoms (Vaginal Sex)4 .251 131 -- 64.1 133 -- 56.4
 Intentions to use condoms (Oral Sex)4 .510 123 -- 59.3 132 -- 54.5
 Intentions to use condoms (Anal Sex)4 .715 122 -- 69.7 131 -- 67.2
 Intentions to test for HIV5 .609 131 -- 56.5 133 -- 60.2
 Intentions to test for STIs5 .370 131 -- 56.5 133 -- 63.2
1

P-value is for the Intervention Group vs. Control Group difference derived from regressing the variable on group and is based on robust standard errors calculated to accommodate clustering by friendship group (as defined by the index case). Dichotomous variables required logistic regression instead of linear regression.

2

% worried or very worried

3

The condom attitude items were inadvertently excluded from the pre-intervention instrument administered to 33 intervention Group participants.

4

% always use condoms

5

% somewhat likely or very likely