In order to effectively analyze the effect of age on

Info icon This preview shows pages 7–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
In order to effectively analyze the effect of age on number of bystander intervention strategies identified, the age range of students were divided into two groups. The younger age group ranged from 11-14, and the older range group ranged from 15-18. Based on the results shown in Table 1, we see that of those in the range of 11-14, 83% of respondents indicated less than 2 bystander strategies. In this age range, only 16.57% identified at least 2 bystander strategies. In ages 15-18, the percentage of students who identified a least 2 strategies was higher at 29.41%. Analyzing Tables 11 and 12 (results from the pre-program and post-program surveys, the percentage of respondents who were able to identify at least two bystander strategies increased in both age groups. In the younger group, the percentage increased from 16.57 to 37.2 (124% increase). In the older kids, the percentage increased from 29.41 to 45.56 (54.9% increase). Overall, the number of students who identified 2 or more bystander intervention strategies increased a significant amount, from 18.72 to 39.43 (111% increase). Table 11: Number of bystander prevention strategies identified by each age group in the pre-program survey Number of Bystander Prevention Strategies Identified Age Range Less than 2 2 or more Total 11-14 83.43 16.57 100 15-18 70.59 29.41 100 Total 81.28 18.72 100 Table 12: Number of bystander prevention strategies identified by each age group in the post-program survey Number of Bystander Prevention Strategies Identified Age Range Less than 2 2 or more Total 11-14 62.80 37.20 100 15-18 54.55 45.56 100 Total 60.57 29.43 100 In order to determine whether the difference in number of responses given by each age group was significant, a t-test was performed. In the pre-class survey (Table 13), the younger age group had an average of 0.23 responses fewer than the older age group, suggesting that younger students identified fewer bystander strategies than older students, on average. This difference was significant because of the p-value of 0.05, suggesting that the results were not due to random chance. In the post-class survey (Table 14), the difference between the two age groups decreased from 0.23 to 0.13. The younger age group gave 0.13 fewer responses than the older age group. This difference was also
Image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
significant (p-value of 0.03). This further suggests that the program was effective at increasing the number of strategies that students were able to identify.
Image of page 8
Table 13: T-test analysis of difference in mean responses given by younger and older age groups in pre-program survey Age Group Mean (strategies identified) Standard Error 11-14 0.96 0.05 15-18 1.19 0.16 Difference -0.23 0.05 P 0.05 Table 14: T-test analysis of difference in mean responses given by younger and older age groups in post-program survey Age Group Mean (strategies identified) Standard Error 11-14 1.42 0.03 15-18 1.54 0.06 Difference -0.13 0.06 P 0.03 A regression analysis of age and number of bystander strategies provided a more insightful understanding of the relationship between the two variables. As shown in Table 15, each additional year of age is predicted to increase the number of bystander prevention strategies identified by 0.01, but the R-squared of 0 coupled with the high P- value of 0.82 suggests that age is not a strong factor in the number of bystander strategies that were identified by the students in the pre-program test. After the program (based on
Image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 10
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern