3. Performance
Dining table step one illustrates the fresh prevalence of each of one’s dangers of the research, according to the level of severity found. Likewise, it reveals the new comparisons amongst the withdrawals regarding children toward different dangers. Overall, the participants whom displayed nothing wrong ranged anywhere between % who had no troubles with tricky Internet have fun with or more to 83.4% who had no problems having on the internet brushing. I keep in mind that all of the average and big difficulties varied between cuatro% to have sexting and you may 17% to own difficult Internet sites fool around with. 9% out-of moderate/severe troubles plus in cyberbullying, they achieved 13.7%. The brand new frequencies based in the various other amounts of issues was in fact always greater for women compared to guys.
Desk 1
Prevalence of each and every of risks just like the a function of the fresh new seriousness of one’s problem toward complete try as well as gender.
In this regard, significant differences were also found between boys and girls in the mean total scores of cyberbullying victimization (Welch’s t = ?2.02, p < 0.043, d = 0.07), online grooming (Welch's t = ?3.51, p < 0.001, d = 0.12) and problematic Internet use (Welch's t = ?2.07, p < 0.039, d = 0.07). In these cases, the mean scores were higher for girls than for boys. There were no significant differences in the rest of the risks: cyber dating abuse victimization (Welch's t = ?1.9, p < 0.058, d = 0.12) and sexting (Welch's t = 0.94, p < 0.410, d = 0.03).
Regarding the type of school (private and public), significant differences were only found in the risks of online grooming (t = ?3.37, p < 0.001, d = 0.13) and sexting (t = 3.8, p < 0.001, d = 0.15). The mean scores were higher in public schools than in private schools in both cases.
In terms of the educational stage (1st–2nd grade of CSE, 3rd–4th grade of CSE and Post-secondary Education), statistically significant differences were found for the risks of cyberbullying victimization (p < 0.002), online grooming (p < 0.001), sexting (p < 0.001) and problematic Internet use (p < 0.001). The scores were higher in 3rd–4th grades, except for online grooming victimization, where higher scores were found in Post-secondary Education (see Table 2 ).
Table 2
Variations since a function of informative stage (1st–second, 3rd–last grades out of CSE and you may Blog post-supplementary Degree) on the threats (n = 3212, with the exception of happening out-of cyber relationships abuse having n = 1061).
Note: Yards = arithmetic imply; SD = practical deviation, F = Welch’s-F, p = significance; ? 2 = eta squared.
Desk step 3 reveals the latest correlations between the some dangers. All of them had positive and you will high correlations together, for the matchmaking ranging from cyberbullying victimization and you will cyber dating victimization reputation aside. Web sites dangers that have an intimate role (on the web brushing and you may sexting) have been extremely synchronised. Overall, the newest correlations had been highest getting people in the most common of one’s risks, with the exception of the fresh matchmaking between cyber relationships victimization and you may brushing and you will anywhere between problematic Websites explore and you will cyberbullying victimization, online grooming and sexting.
Table 3
Note: The correlations for boys are shown below the diagonal and for girls above it. All correlations are significant at p < 0.001. M = arithmetic mean; SD = standard deviation.
Dining table 4 gift ideas the newest comorbidities one of several certain Sites risks relevant so you’re able to personal telecommunications (cyberbullying victimization, cyber dating punishment victimization, sexting an internet-based grooming). Just the players exactly who finished all the items towards dangers related in order to victimization (n = 1109) were considered (we.age., removing about studies people that didn’t 
come with companion). Of your kept users, 60.7% shown a minumum of one of your own analysed dangers (letter = 674). The danger towards the high private prevalence are cyberbullying victimization (%), followed closely by on line brushing. The most frequent a couple-risk combinations have been cyberbullying victimization-online brushing and you can cyberbullying-sexting. We high light the 3-risk mix of cyberbullying-sexting-grooming victimization. Eventually, 5.49% of one’s victimized kids presented all of the risks conjointly.