Table 1.
Attrition analysis. Comparison effects of attrition at school level and at participant level.
| Outcomes | Comparison Effect of Attrition for Schools | Comparison Effect of Treatment Condition and Attrition for Participants | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schools at Post-Test (7 Schools) | Schools at Follow-Up (3 Schools) | Diff. | Participants with Only Pre-Test | Participants with Pre-Test and Post-Test | Participants with Three Waves | ||||||||
| CG | EG | Total | CG | EG | Total | CG | EG | Total | |||||
| Moderate Physical dating aggression | 0.063 (0.235) | 0.057 (0.214) | T(1366) = −10.027; p = 0.304; d = −0.06 | 0.096 (0.309) | 0.097 (0.287) | 0.096 (0.301) | 0.069 (0.232) | 0.056 (0.244) | 0.064 (0.236) | 0.023 (0.137) | 0.027 (0.141) | 0.025 (0.139) | |
| Moderate Physical dating victimization | 0.075 (0.289) | 0.068 (0.288) | T(1372) = −0.391; p = 0.696; d = 0.02 | 0.097 (0.353) | 0.125 (0.383) | 0.107 (0.363) | 0.085 (0.306) | 0.072 (0.294) | 0.080 (0.303) | 0.029 (0.141) | 0.051 (0.257) | 0.038 (0.198) | |
| Severe Physical dating aggression | 0.043 (0.195) | 0.047 (0.207) | T(1364) = 0.389; p = 0.697; d = 0.02 | 0.052 (0.186) | 0.110 (0.327) | 0.073 (0.246) | 0.051 (0.221) | 0.046 (0.227) | 0.049 (0.223) | 0.013 (0.076) | 0.028 (0.130) | 0.019 (0.103) | |
| Severe Physical dating victimization | 0.044 (0.185) | 0.050 (0.237) | T(1371) = 0.577; p = 0.564; d = 0.03 | 0.050 (0.164) | 0.073 (0.213) | 0.058 (0.183) | 0.053 (0.242) | 0.054 (0.254) | 0.053 (0.247) | 0.017 (0.080) | 0.045 (0.195) | 0.029 (0.141) | |
| Sexual dating aggression | 0.044 (0.251) | 0.034 (0.156) | T(1359) = −0.908; p = 0.364; d = −0.05 | 0.037 (0.162) | 0.028 (0.112) | 0.034 (0.147) | 0.045 (0.208) | 0.052 (0.333) | 0.048 (0.264) | 0.028 (0.131) | 0.034 (0.148) | 0.030 (0.139) | |
| Sexual dating victimization | 0.065 (0.293) | 0.077 (0.275) | T(1368) = 0.790; p = 0.430; d = 0.04 | 0.072 (0.338) | 0.045 (0.130) | 0.062 (0.282) | 0.089 (0.329) | 0.066 (0.269) | 0.075 (0.307) | 0.054 (0.205) | 0.081 (0.290) | 0.065 (0.245) | |
| Bullying aggression | 0.439 (0.608) | 0.392 (0.492) | T(1394) = −10.563; p = 0.118; d = −0.08 | 0.426 (0.539) | 0.466 (0.559) | 0.440 (0.546) | 0.439 (0.626) | 0.477 (0.624) | 0.454 (0.625) | 0.369 (0.451) | 0.314 (0.399) | 0.346 (0.431) | |
| Bullying victimization | 0.681 (0.750) | 0.687 (0.749) | T(1400) = −0.135; p = 0.893; d = −0.01 | 0.578 (0.726) | 0.573 (0.631) | 0.576 (0.693) | 0.709 (0.768) | 0.782 (0.797) | 0.737 (0.779) | 0.618 (0.649) | 0.701 (0.805) | 0.652 (719) | |
| Gender | Boys | 407 (500.7%) | 327 (530.2%) | X2(1) = 0.862; p = 0.362; CC = 0.03 | 68 (440.7%) | 54 (620.8%) | 122 (510.3%) | 229 (490.9%) | 146 (490.8%) | 375 (490.9%) | 138 (55%) | 99 (550.9%) | 237 (550.4%) |
| Girls | 396 (490.3%) | 288 (460.8%) | 84 (550.3%) | 32 (370.2%) | 116 (480.7%) | 230 (500.1%) | 147 (500.2%) | 377 (500.1%) | 113 (45%) | 78 (440.1%) | 191 (440.6%) | ||
| Age | 140.985 (10.426) | 140.977 (10.353) | T(1413) = −0.103; p = 0.918; d = −0.00 | 150.362 (10.715) | 150.128 (10.423) | 150.278 (10.621) | 150.112 (10.433) | 140.929 (10.311) | 150.041 (10.389) | 140.724 (10.227) | 140.695 (10.202) | 140.712 (10.216) | |
Note: CG = control group; EG = experimental group; Mean and (Standard Deviation) are displayed in the table except for gender; T = Student’s T; p = p-value; d = Cohen’s d; X2 = Chi-squared; CC = Contingency coefficient.