Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Ann Behav Med. 2015 Jun;49(3):358–370. doi: 10.1007/s12160-014-9659-y

Table 1. Description of the Sample and Comparison of Experimental Groups at Baseline.

Baseline interviews + evidence-based session
Evidence-based session
Baseline interviews + standard of care session
Standard of care session
χ2 / F
Event-based
n = 280
Frequency-based
n = 266
n = 290 Event-based
n = 287
Frequency-based
n = 324
n = 281
M (SD) age 20.8 (1.98) 20.6 (1.95) 20.7 (2.11) 20.5 (1.81) 20.7 (1.92) 20.8 (2.06) 1.06
M (SD) years of education 11.1 (1.28)a 11.0 (1.21) 11.0 (1.57) 11.0 (1.68) 10.9 (1.89)b 11.0 (1.03) 1.16
N (%) female 153 (55%) 142 (53%) 156 (54%) 140 (49%) 156 (48%) 155 (55%) 5.58
N (%) without a regular activity 112 (40%) 108 (41%) 121 (42%) 113 (40%) 127 (40%) 106 (38%) 1.15
M (SD) condom use intentions (-3- / + 3) 2.0 (1.60) 2.0 (1.72) 2.2 (1.55) 1.9 (1.77) 2.0 (1.68) 2.1 (1.60) 0.87
M (SD) single partner intentions (-3/+3) 1.7 (2.00) 1.6 (1.94) 1.6 (1.99) 1.5 (2.09) 1.4 (2.20) 1.7 (1.98) 0.99
M (SD) risk perceptions (1-6) 3.2 (1.43) 3.0 (1.49) 3.0 (1.49) 3.1 (1.45) 3.2 (1.44) 3.2 (1.48) 0.86
M (SD) n sexual partners 1.6 (1.05) 1.7 (1.47) __ 1.6 (1.17) 1.8 (2.15) __ 1.05
N (%) had more than 1 partner 102 (37%) 102 (39%) __ 110 (39%) 121 (39%) __ 0.30

M (SD) % condom use with main partners 49 (43) 54 (37) __ 49 (43) 51 (33) __ 0.53
M (SD) % condom use with secondary partners 59 (39) 62 (38) __ 59 (40) 66 (38) __ 1.04
N (%) 100% protected sex with secondary partners 48 (33%) 40 (37%) __ 47 (35%) 52 (4%) __ 1.74

Note. Different subscripts indicate significantly different means at p <.05.