Table 7.

The effect of boarding on students’ mental health from heterogeneity of grade 4 and grade 5.

$\mathit{D}\mathit{e}\mathit{p}\mathit{e}\mathit{d}\mathit{e}\mathit{n}\mathit{t} \mathit{V}\mathit{a}\mathit{r}\mathit{i}\mathit{a}\mathit{b}\mathit{l}\mathit{e}$: $\Delta {\mathit{y}}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{s}}={\mathit{y}}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{s},\mathit{e}\mathit{n}\mathit{d}\mathit{l}\mathit{i}\mathit{n}\mathit{e}} - {\mathit{y}}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{s},\mathit{b}\mathit{a}\mathit{s}\mathit{e}\mathit{l}\mathit{i}\mathit{n}\mathit{e}}$	ATT a	Standard Errors (SEs)	t-Value
(1) Mental health	−0.20 **	(0.08)	−2.60
(2) Learning anxiety	−0.39 **	(0.18)	−2.22
(3) Anxiety about people	−0.27 **	(0.13)	−2.06
(4) Loneliness tendency	0.05	(0.12)	0.39
(5) Self-blame tendency	−0.23	(0.14)	−1.64
(6) Allergy tendency	−0.18	(0.13)	−1.40
(7) Physical symptoms	−0.09	(0.16)	−0.59
(8) Horror tendency	0.03	(0.14)	0.18
(9) Impulsive tendency	−0.06	(0.13)	−0.44
N	1910	1910	1910

Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. The table shows the regression results of boarding on mental health level and its different dimensions with difference in grade 4 and grade 5. Each regression equation controlled the personal characteristics of students (including gender, age, grade, myopia, standardized mathematics scores of students at baseline, and distance from school to county town) and family background (including natural logarithm of family finance, education level of parents, and whether parents migrate for work). ^a ATT, average treatment effect on treated, indicating the real effect of boarding on students’ mental health. Data source: Authors’ survey.