Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Adolesc Health. 2019 Jul 2;65(6):738–744. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.04.026

Table 2.

Frequency, Mean, SD, and associations among sexting involvement and dating and sexual behaviors

Measures Mean/Frequency (%) SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Sexting involvement (W3) 1.15
Y:481 (54)
N:411 (46)		 1.33
2. Sexting involvement (W4) 1.11
Y:364 (48)
N:401 (52)		 1.41 .49
3. Sexting involvement (W5) 1.29
Y:343 (50)
N:340 (50)		 1.49 .40 .53
4. Sexting involvement (W6) 1.47
Y:395 (53)
N:348 (47)		 1.59 .31 .44 .54
5. Sexually active (W3) Y:568 (64)
N:324(36)		 .33 .19 .16 .12**
6. Sexually active (W4) Y:567(73)
N:208(27)		 .34 .28 .24 .20 .69
7. Sexually active (W5) Y:554(80)
N:138(20)		 .30 .27 .23 .22 .61 .79
8. Sexually active (W6) Y:653(87)
N: 101(13)		 .27 .24 .23 .23 .49 .65 .79
9. # of dating partner (W3) 1.49 1.25 .24 .19 11** .09* .24 .33 .30 .30
10. # of dating partner (W4) 1.48 1.19 .22 .27 .20 .23 .23 .34 .34 .32 .42
11. # of dating partner (W5) 1.28 1.07 .24 .25 .28 .18 .21 .24 .29 .30 .31 .44
12. # of dating partner (W6) 1.30 1.08 .18 .16 .14 .23 .22 .25 .26 .26 .25 .32 .36
13. # of sex partner (W3) 1.81 1.17 .27 .12* .10* .09+ - - - - .39 .26 .18 .14**
14. # of sex partner (W4) 1.92 1.20 .23 .27 .16 .16 .14** - - - .22 .37 .18 .15** .50
15. # of sex partner (W5) 1.94 1.25 .23 .23 .35 .23 .11* .14** - - .17 .29 .43 .18 .40 .45
16. # of sex partner (W6) 1.90 1.19 .22 .24 .26 .31 .15 .21 .13 - .14 .21 .21 .45 .32 .34 .54

Note. Y indicates the number of youth (percentage) who reported engaging in sexting or sexual activity and N indicates the number of youth (percentage) who reported not engaging in sexting or sexual activity. The number of sex partners was derived only from youth who reported a history of sexual intercourse. Thus, associations between # of sex partners and being sexually active across waves are not shown. Due to missingness, sample size for each variable is not equal to N=971 and df for correlations varied. p-value for all associations was less than <.001 except for

*

<.05,

**

<.01,

+

<.10.