Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jan 8.
Published in final edited form as: Educ Res Eval. 2020 Jan 31;25(5-6):248–269. doi: 10.1080/13803611.2020.1717542

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics by condition.

Variable Whole Sample
(N = 496)		 Control
(n = 107)		 Treatment
(n = 389)		 Pearson χ2 and F (df)
Gender 70% women;
30% men		 71% women;
29% men		 69% women;
31% men		 .15
URM students 92% 91% 93% .30
First-generation students 56% 54% 56% .22
URM and first-generation 50% 49% 52% .05
Social belonging
(1–7 scale)		 M = 4.94; SD = 1.15 M = 5.14; SD = 1.17 M = 4.88; SD = 1.14 2.52 (269)
Stereotype vulnerability
(1–5 scale)		 M = 2.71; SD = 1.25 M = 2.64; SD = 1.25 M = 2.73; SD = 1.25 .22 (259)
Standardised Qscore M = .04; SD = .97 M = .16; SD = .85 M = .03; SD = 1.00 2.11 (454)

Note: Pearson χ2 was used for nominal variables (gender, URM, first-generation, and URM + first-generation). ANOVA was used to test differences on continuous variables (social belonging, stereotype vulnerability, and Qscore). There were no significant differences between treatment and control.