Volunteer Summary
CONSORT Flow Diagram
Overall status
Characteristic | Overall1 | Control1 | Treatment1 |
|---|---|---|---|
time_point | |||
1st | 118 | 58 | 60 |
2nd | 100 | 53 | 47 |
1n | |||
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1201 | control, N = 581 | treatment, N = 621 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 120 | 38.15 ± 17.06 (18 - 148) | 39.90 ± 19.46 (18 - 148) | 36.51 ± 14.44 (20 - 70) | 0.279 |
gender | 120 | 0.298 | |||
female | 86 (72%) | 39 (67%) | 47 (76%) | ||
male | 34 (28%) | 19 (33%) | 15 (24%) | ||
occupation | 120 | 0.659 | |||
civil | 6 (5.0%) | 2 (3.4%) | 4 (6.5%) | ||
clerk | 23 (19%) | 9 (16%) | 14 (23%) | ||
homemaker | 8 (6.7%) | 3 (5.2%) | 5 (8.1%) | ||
manager | 16 (13%) | 9 (16%) | 7 (11%) | ||
other | 11 (9.2%) | 4 (6.9%) | 7 (11%) | ||
professional | 15 (12%) | 11 (19%) | 4 (6.5%) | ||
retired | 4 (3.3%) | 2 (3.4%) | 2 (3.2%) | ||
service | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
student | 30 (25%) | 15 (26%) | 15 (24%) | ||
unemploy | 2 (1.7%) | 1 (1.7%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
working_status | 120 | 76 (63%) | 37 (64%) | 39 (63%) | 0.919 |
marital | 120 | 0.477 | |||
divorced | 4 (3.3%) | 1 (1.7%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
married | 27 (22%) | 15 (26%) | 12 (19%) | ||
single | 88 (73%) | 41 (71%) | 47 (76%) | ||
widowed | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | ||
marital_r | 120 | 0.689 | |||
married | 27 (22%) | 15 (26%) | 12 (19%) | ||
other | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
single | 88 (73%) | 41 (71%) | 47 (76%) | ||
education | 120 | 0.074 | |||
primary | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
secondary | 14 (12%) | 3 (5.2%) | 11 (18%) | ||
post-secondary | 20 (17%) | 12 (21%) | 8 (13%) | ||
university | 86 (72%) | 43 (74%) | 43 (69%) | ||
university_edu | 120 | 86 (72%) | 43 (74%) | 43 (69%) | 0.561 |
family_income | 120 | 0.541 | |||
0_10000 | 13 (11%) | 5 (8.6%) | 8 (13%) | ||
10001_20000 | 22 (18%) | 8 (14%) | 14 (23%) | ||
20001_30000 | 23 (19%) | 11 (19%) | 12 (19%) | ||
30001_40000 | 20 (17%) | 10 (17%) | 10 (16%) | ||
40000_above | 42 (35%) | 24 (41%) | 18 (29%) | ||
high_income | 120 | 62 (52%) | 34 (59%) | 28 (45%) | 0.140 |
religion | 120 | 0.649 | |||
buddhism | 5 (4.2%) | 4 (6.9%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
catholic | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
christianity | 47 (39%) | 23 (40%) | 24 (39%) | ||
nil | 61 (51%) | 29 (50%) | 32 (52%) | ||
other | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
taoism | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
religion_r | 120 | 0.915 | |||
christianity | 52 (43%) | 25 (43%) | 27 (44%) | ||
nil | 61 (51%) | 29 (50%) | 32 (52%) | ||
other | 7 (5.8%) | 4 (6.9%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
source | 120 | 0.067 | |||
bokss | 51 (42%) | 20 (34%) | 31 (50%) | ||
17 (14%) | 13 (22%) | 4 (6.5%) | |||
9 (7.5%) | 6 (10%) | 3 (4.8%) | |||
other | 19 (16%) | 9 (16%) | 10 (16%) | ||
refresh | 24 (20%) | 10 (17%) | 14 (23%) | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1201 | control, N = 581 | treatment, N = 621 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | 120 | 19.20 ± 2.18 (15 - 25) | 19.02 ± 2.03 (15 - 24) | 19.37 ± 2.31 (15 - 25) | 0.377 |
setv | 120 | 11.14 ± 1.64 (7 - 15) | 11.03 ± 1.56 (8 - 15) | 11.24 ± 1.71 (7 - 15) | 0.490 |
maks | 120 | 44.92 ± 3.63 (36 - 57) | 44.67 ± 3.59 (36 - 52) | 45.16 ± 3.68 (38 - 57) | 0.463 |
ibs | 120 | 15.44 ± 2.45 (5 - 20) | 15.41 ± 2.14 (10 - 20) | 15.47 ± 2.72 (5 - 20) | 0.904 |
ers_e | 120 | 12.22 ± 1.46 (8 - 15) | 12.14 ± 1.47 (8 - 15) | 12.29 ± 1.45 (9 - 15) | 0.569 |
ers_r | 120 | 11.11 ± 1.58 (7 - 15) | 11.02 ± 1.57 (7 - 14) | 11.19 ± 1.59 (8 - 15) | 0.543 |
pss_pa | 120 | 44.62 ± 4.47 (30 - 54) | 44.47 ± 4.26 (30 - 54) | 44.76 ± 4.68 (31 - 54) | 0.722 |
pss_ps | 120 | 26.64 ± 8.34 (12 - 56) | 26.67 ± 7.63 (13 - 42) | 26.61 ± 9.02 (12 - 56) | 0.969 |
pss | 120 | 45.02 ± 11.85 (21 - 77) | 45.21 ± 11.26 (22 - 72) | 44.85 ± 12.47 (21 - 77) | 0.872 |
rki_responsible | 120 | 21.01 ± 4.13 (7 - 32) | 20.95 ± 4.11 (13 - 29) | 21.06 ± 4.18 (7 - 32) | 0.878 |
rki_nonlinear | 120 | 13.30 ± 2.75 (6 - 22) | 13.12 ± 2.54 (6 - 20) | 13.47 ± 2.94 (7 - 22) | 0.492 |
rki_peer | 120 | 20.58 ± 2.15 (16 - 25) | 20.47 ± 2.07 (16 - 25) | 20.68 ± 2.23 (16 - 25) | 0.591 |
rki_expect | 120 | 4.75 ± 1.09 (2 - 8) | 4.60 ± 1.11 (2 - 8) | 4.89 ± 1.07 (2 - 7) | 0.157 |
rki | 120 | 59.63 ± 6.10 (44 - 81) | 59.14 ± 5.86 (45 - 76) | 60.10 ± 6.33 (44 - 81) | 0.392 |
raq_possible | 120 | 15.66 ± 1.79 (12 - 20) | 15.74 ± 1.89 (12 - 20) | 15.58 ± 1.71 (12 - 20) | 0.626 |
raq_difficulty | 120 | 12.42 ± 1.39 (9 - 15) | 12.53 ± 1.38 (9 - 15) | 12.31 ± 1.41 (9 - 15) | 0.373 |
raq | 120 | 28.08 ± 2.90 (21 - 35) | 28.28 ± 2.97 (21 - 35) | 27.89 ± 2.85 (21 - 35) | 0.466 |
who | 120 | 14.63 ± 4.46 (3 - 25) | 14.62 ± 4.24 (6 - 25) | 14.65 ± 4.68 (3 - 25) | 0.976 |
phq | 120 | 3.76 ± 3.81 (0 - 18) | 3.66 ± 3.73 (0 - 17) | 3.85 ± 3.91 (0 - 18) | 0.776 |
gad | 120 | 3.23 ± 3.57 (0 - 21) | 3.38 ± 4.11 (0 - 21) | 3.08 ± 3.00 (0 - 12) | 0.649 |
nb_pcs | 120 | 51.64 ± 7.15 (25 - 63) | 51.88 ± 7.17 (25 - 63) | 51.42 ± 7.18 (27 - 62) | 0.729 |
nb_mcs | 120 | 50.24 ± 8.59 (22 - 70) | 50.20 ± 8.89 (22 - 68) | 50.28 ± 8.37 (35 - 70) | 0.960 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | (Intercept) | 19.4 | 0.588 | 18.2, 20.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.306 | 0.386 | -0.451, 1.06 | 0.429 | |
number_volunteer_r | -0.010 | 0.280 | -0.558, 0.538 | 0.970 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.093 | 0.343 | -0.766, 0.580 | 0.787 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | -0.003 | 0.642 | -1.26, 1.26 | 0.996 | |
20001_30000 | -0.413 | 0.635 | -1.66, 0.831 | 0.517 | |
30001_40000 | -0.743 | 0.646 | -2.01, 0.522 | 0.252 | |
40000_above | -0.395 | 0.582 | -1.54, 0.746 | 0.499 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.389 | 0.450 | -0.493, 1.27 | 0.390 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
setv | (Intercept) | 11.3 | 0.485 | 10.3, 12.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.286 | 0.310 | -0.321, 0.893 | 0.358 | |
number_volunteer_r | -0.097 | 0.203 | -0.496, 0.301 | 0.633 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.271 | 0.238 | -0.196, 0.738 | 0.257 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | -0.175 | 0.541 | -1.24, 0.885 | 0.746 | |
20001_30000 | -0.245 | 0.534 | -1.29, 0.802 | 0.647 | |
30001_40000 | -0.493 | 0.545 | -1.56, 0.575 | 0.367 | |
40000_above | -0.040 | 0.491 | -1.00, 0.923 | 0.936 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.282 | 0.310 | -0.889, 0.325 | 0.365 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
maks | (Intercept) | 43.4 | 1.105 | 41.3, 45.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.519 | 0.693 | -0.840, 1.88 | 0.455 | |
number_volunteer_r | 0.255 | 0.404 | -0.537, 1.05 | 0.529 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.084 | 0.459 | -0.983, 0.815 | 0.855 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 1.22 | 1.251 | -1.24, 3.67 | 0.333 | |
20001_30000 | 0.913 | 1.234 | -1.50, 3.33 | 0.461 | |
30001_40000 | 0.480 | 1.260 | -1.99, 2.95 | 0.704 | |
40000_above | 1.67 | 1.135 | -0.554, 3.90 | 0.144 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.071 | 0.593 | -1.09, 1.23 | 0.905 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
ibs | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 0.682 | 13.9, 16.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.093 | 0.428 | -0.932, 0.747 | 0.829 | |
number_volunteer_r | 0.063 | 0.253 | -0.433, 0.560 | 0.803 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.199 | 0.288 | -0.366, 0.763 | 0.492 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 0.794 | 0.771 | -0.716, 2.30 | 0.305 | |
20001_30000 | -0.060 | 0.760 | -1.55, 1.43 | 0.937 | |
30001_40000 | 0.337 | 0.776 | -1.18, 1.86 | 0.665 | |
40000_above | 0.044 | 0.699 | -1.33, 1.41 | 0.949 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.439 | 0.372 | -0.290, 1.17 | 0.241 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
ers_e | (Intercept) | 11.5 | 0.415 | 10.7, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.153 | 0.263 | -0.363, 0.670 | 0.561 | |
number_volunteer_r | -0.029 | 0.166 | -0.355, 0.297 | 0.861 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.306 | 0.193 | -0.683, 0.072 | 0.115 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 1.05 | 0.466 | 0.133, 1.96 | 0.027 | |
20001_30000 | 0.520 | 0.460 | -0.381, 1.42 | 0.260 | |
30001_40000 | 0.593 | 0.469 | -0.327, 1.51 | 0.209 | |
40000_above | 0.782 | 0.423 | -0.046, 1.61 | 0.067 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.374 | 0.250 | -0.116, 0.864 | 0.137 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.057 | ||||
ers_r | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.415 | 9.86, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.160 | 0.278 | -0.384, 0.705 | 0.564 | |
number_volunteer_r | 0.213 | 0.208 | -0.194, 0.620 | 0.307 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.210 | 0.262 | -0.304, 0.723 | 0.425 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 0.573 | 0.449 | -0.307, 1.45 | 0.205 | |
20001_30000 | 0.081 | 0.444 | -0.788, 0.951 | 0.855 | |
30001_40000 | 0.189 | 0.451 | -0.694, 1.07 | 0.676 | |
40000_above | 0.269 | 0.407 | -0.528, 1.07 | 0.510 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.270 | 0.345 | -0.405, 0.946 | 0.435 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
pss_pa | (Intercept) | 45.3 | 1.278 | 42.8, 47.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.820 | -1.14, 2.07 | 0.572 | |
number_volunteer_r | -0.327 | 0.550 | -1.41, 0.751 | 0.553 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.26 | 0.650 | -2.54, 0.012 | 0.055 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 0.250 | 1.421 | -2.53, 3.04 | 0.861 | |
20001_30000 | -1.60 | 1.403 | -4.35, 1.15 | 0.256 | |
30001_40000 | -0.908 | 1.430 | -3.71, 1.89 | 0.527 | |
40000_above | -0.587 | 1.289 | -3.11, 1.94 | 0.650 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.398 | 0.846 | -1.26, 2.06 | 0.639 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
pss_ps | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 2.373 | 23.2, 32.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.475 | 1.487 | -3.39, 2.44 | 0.750 | |
number_volunteer_r | 0.027 | 0.859 | -1.66, 1.71 | 0.975 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.986 | 0.972 | -0.919, 2.89 | 0.313 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | -2.32 | 2.690 | -7.59, 2.95 | 0.391 | |
20001_30000 | 0.857 | 2.653 | -4.34, 6.06 | 0.747 | |
30001_40000 | -0.806 | 2.710 | -6.12, 4.51 | 0.767 | |
40000_above | -2.06 | 2.441 | -6.85, 2.72 | 0.399 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.46 | 1.255 | -3.91, 1.00 | 0.249 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
pss | (Intercept) | 45.5 | 3.378 | 38.9, 52.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.936 | 2.116 | -5.08, 3.21 | 0.659 | |
number_volunteer_r | 0.315 | 1.221 | -2.08, 2.71 | 0.797 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.25 | 1.381 | -0.460, 4.95 | 0.107 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | -2.56 | 3.828 | -10.1, 4.95 | 0.505 | |
20001_30000 | 2.41 | 3.775 | -4.99, 9.81 | 0.524 | |
30001_40000 | 0.140 | 3.858 | -7.42, 7.70 | 0.971 | |
40000_above | -1.49 | 3.474 | -8.30, 5.32 | 0.668 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.84 | 1.784 | -5.33, 1.66 | 0.305 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
rki_responsible | (Intercept) | 19.3 | 1.236 | 16.9, 21.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.154 | 0.779 | -1.37, 1.68 | 0.844 | |
number_volunteer_r | -0.071 | 0.470 | -0.992, 0.849 | 0.879 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.057 | 0.537 | -1.11, 0.995 | 0.916 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 2.30 | 1.395 | -0.434, 5.03 | 0.102 | |
20001_30000 | 1.91 | 1.376 | -0.787, 4.61 | 0.168 | |
30001_40000 | 2.16 | 1.405 | -0.596, 4.91 | 0.127 | |
40000_above | 1.45 | 1.266 | -1.03, 3.93 | 0.253 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.226 | 0.695 | -1.14, 1.59 | 0.746 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
rki_nonlinear | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.841 | 10.6, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.170 | 0.534 | -0.877, 1.22 | 0.750 | |
number_volunteer_r | 0.227 | 0.341 | -0.442, 0.895 | 0.507 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.186 | 0.396 | -0.962, 0.590 | 0.639 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 1.44 | 0.942 | -0.410, 3.28 | 0.130 | |
20001_30000 | 1.23 | 0.930 | -0.592, 3.05 | 0.188 | |
30001_40000 | 0.840 | 0.949 | -1.02, 2.70 | 0.378 | |
40000_above | 0.339 | 0.855 | -1.34, 2.01 | 0.693 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.02 | 0.514 | 0.015, 2.03 | 0.049 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.051 | ||||
rki_peer | (Intercept) | 20.2 | 0.649 | 18.9, 21.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.146 | 0.413 | -0.663, 0.955 | 0.724 | |
number_volunteer_r | 0.287 | 0.264 | -0.230, 0.804 | 0.278 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.179 | 0.306 | -0.421, 0.779 | 0.561 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 0.068 | 0.728 | -1.36, 1.49 | 0.926 | |
20001_30000 | -0.074 | 0.718 | -1.48, 1.33 | 0.919 | |
30001_40000 | 0.350 | 0.733 | -1.09, 1.79 | 0.634 | |
40000_above | 0.124 | 0.660 | -1.17, 1.42 | 0.851 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.032 | 0.397 | -0.811, 0.747 | 0.936 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
rki_expect | (Intercept) | 4.49 | 0.304 | 3.89, 5.09 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.263 | 0.197 | -0.124, 0.650 | 0.185 | |
number_volunteer_r | -0.129 | 0.137 | -0.399, 0.140 | 0.348 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.096 | 0.165 | -0.227, 0.419 | 0.562 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 0.588 | 0.336 | -0.071, 1.25 | 0.083 | |
20001_30000 | 0.293 | 0.332 | -0.358, 0.943 | 0.379 | |
30001_40000 | 0.266 | 0.338 | -0.397, 0.928 | 0.434 | |
40000_above | -0.009 | 0.305 | -0.606, 0.589 | 0.977 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.093 | 0.215 | -0.329, 0.515 | 0.666 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.078 | ||||
rki | (Intercept) | 56.3 | 1.826 | 52.7, 59.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.734 | 1.152 | -1.52, 2.99 | 0.525 | |
number_volunteer_r | 0.310 | 0.703 | -1.07, 1.69 | 0.660 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.034 | 0.805 | -1.54, 1.61 | 0.966 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 4.39 | 2.058 | 0.357, 8.43 | 0.035 | |
20001_30000 | 3.35 | 2.030 | -0.625, 7.33 | 0.101 | |
30001_40000 | 3.61 | 2.073 | -0.455, 7.67 | 0.085 | |
40000_above | 1.91 | 1.867 | -1.75, 5.57 | 0.309 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.32 | 1.043 | -0.726, 3.36 | 0.209 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.059 | ||||
raq_possible | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.527 | 14.2, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.194 | 0.339 | -0.859, 0.471 | 0.569 | |
number_volunteer_r | 0.245 | 0.231 | -0.209, 0.699 | 0.291 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.257 | 0.275 | -0.796, 0.283 | 0.353 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 0.238 | 0.584 | -0.907, 1.38 | 0.685 | |
20001_30000 | 0.106 | 0.576 | -1.02, 1.24 | 0.854 | |
30001_40000 | 0.438 | 0.587 | -0.713, 1.59 | 0.457 | |
40000_above | 0.526 | 0.529 | -0.512, 1.56 | 0.323 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.742 | 0.359 | 0.039, 1.45 | 0.041 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
raq_difficulty | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.403 | 11.3, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.209 | 0.256 | -0.711, 0.292 | 0.414 | |
number_volunteer_r | 0.108 | 0.163 | -0.212, 0.429 | 0.508 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.061 | 0.190 | -0.433, 0.310 | 0.747 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 0.336 | 0.451 | -0.548, 1.22 | 0.458 | |
20001_30000 | 0.183 | 0.445 | -0.689, 1.06 | 0.681 | |
30001_40000 | 0.676 | 0.454 | -0.215, 1.57 | 0.140 | |
40000_above | 0.546 | 0.409 | -0.256, 1.35 | 0.185 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.226 | 0.246 | -0.257, 0.708 | 0.361 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
raq | (Intercept) | 27.3 | 0.858 | 25.6, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.404 | 0.545 | -1.47, 0.664 | 0.459 | |
number_volunteer_r | 0.368 | 0.345 | -0.308, 1.04 | 0.288 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.297 | 0.400 | -1.08, 0.487 | 0.459 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 0.564 | 0.963 | -1.32, 2.45 | 0.559 | |
20001_30000 | 0.291 | 0.950 | -1.57, 2.15 | 0.760 | |
30001_40000 | 1.10 | 0.970 | -0.799, 3.00 | 0.258 | |
40000_above | 1.07 | 0.874 | -0.639, 2.79 | 0.222 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.961 | 0.519 | -0.055, 1.98 | 0.067 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
who | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 1.317 | 12.8, 18.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.154 | 0.828 | -1.47, 1.78 | 0.853 | |
number_volunteer_r | 0.456 | 0.493 | -0.511, 1.42 | 0.357 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.135 | 0.562 | -0.966, 1.24 | 0.810 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | -1.56 | 1.488 | -4.47, 1.36 | 0.297 | |
20001_30000 | -1.16 | 1.467 | -4.04, 1.71 | 0.430 | |
30001_40000 | -1.38 | 1.499 | -4.32, 1.56 | 0.359 | |
40000_above | -0.873 | 1.350 | -3.52, 1.77 | 0.519 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.074 | 0.727 | -1.35, 1.50 | 0.919 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
phq | (Intercept) | 4.13 | 1.125 | 1.92, 6.33 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.027 | 0.696 | -1.34, 1.39 | 0.969 | |
number_volunteer_r | -0.260 | 0.347 | -0.941, 0.421 | 0.456 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.024 | 0.384 | -0.776, 0.728 | 0.950 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 0.161 | 1.288 | -2.36, 2.69 | 0.901 | |
20001_30000 | -0.006 | 1.270 | -2.49, 2.48 | 0.996 | |
30001_40000 | -0.307 | 1.299 | -2.85, 2.24 | 0.813 | |
40000_above | -0.736 | 1.169 | -3.03, 1.55 | 0.530 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.343 | 0.493 | -0.624, 1.31 | 0.488 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
gad | (Intercept) | 3.65 | 1.049 | 1.60, 5.71 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.334 | 0.655 | -1.62, 0.950 | 0.611 | |
number_volunteer_r | -0.328 | 0.365 | -1.04, 0.387 | 0.370 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.211 | 0.410 | -1.01, 0.594 | 0.609 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 0.068 | 1.192 | -2.27, 2.41 | 0.954 | |
20001_30000 | -0.094 | 1.176 | -2.40, 2.21 | 0.936 | |
30001_40000 | 0.297 | 1.202 | -2.06, 2.65 | 0.805 | |
40000_above | -0.349 | 1.082 | -2.47, 1.77 | 0.747 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.401 | 0.529 | -0.636, 1.44 | 0.450 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
nb_pcs | (Intercept) | 46.8 | 2.049 | 42.7, 50.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.222 | 1.287 | -2.75, 2.30 | 0.864 | |
number_volunteer_r | 0.568 | 0.762 | -0.926, 2.06 | 0.457 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.466 | 0.867 | -2.17, 1.23 | 0.592 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | 4.36 | 2.316 | -0.180, 8.90 | 0.062 | |
20001_30000 | 4.06 | 2.285 | -0.416, 8.54 | 0.078 | |
30001_40000 | 5.33 | 2.334 | 0.754, 9.90 | 0.024 | |
40000_above | 6.12 | 2.102 | 2.00, 10.2 | 0.004 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.760 | 1.121 | -1.44, 2.96 | 0.499 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.064 | ||||
nb_mcs | (Intercept) | 51.0 | 2.515 | 46.0, 55.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.409 | 1.592 | -2.71, 3.53 | 0.798 | |
number_volunteer_r | 0.231 | 0.991 | -1.71, 2.17 | 0.816 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.09 | 1.142 | -1.15, 3.33 | 0.341 | |
family_income | |||||
0_10000 | — | — | — | ||
10001_20000 | -1.26 | 2.828 | -6.80, 4.28 | 0.657 | |
20001_30000 | -1.32 | 2.790 | -6.79, 4.15 | 0.637 | |
30001_40000 | -1.80 | 2.848 | -7.38, 3.79 | 0.530 | |
40000_above | -0.320 | 2.565 | -5.35, 4.71 | 0.901 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.62 | 1.480 | -4.52, 1.28 | 0.277 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
sets
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sets with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: sets ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 19.39 (95% CI [18.24, 20.54], t(207) = 33.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.06], t(207) = 0.79, p = 0.428; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.52])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.54], t(207) = -0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = -2.82e-03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.58], t(207) = -0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.28])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.96e-03, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.26], t(207) = -4.60e-03, p = 0.996; Std. beta = -1.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.61])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.66, 0.83], t(207) = -0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.40])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.52], t(207) = -1.15, p = 0.250; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.25])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.75], t(207) = -0.68, p = 0.497; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.27], t(207) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
setv
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict setv with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: setv ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 11.26 (95% CI [10.31, 12.21], t(207) = 23.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.89], t(207) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.54])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.30], t(207) = -0.48, p = 0.632; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.74], t(207) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.45])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.89], t(207) = -0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.54])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.80], t(207) = -0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.49])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.57], t(207) = -0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.35])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.92], t(207) = -0.08, p = 0.935; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.56])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.32], t(207) = -0.91, p = 0.362; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
maks
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict maks with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: maks ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 43.43 (95% CI [41.26, 45.59], t(207) = 39.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.88], t(207) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.51])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.05], t(207) = 0.63, p = 0.528; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.82], t(207) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.22])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-1.24, 3.67], t(207) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.00])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.50, 3.33], t(207) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.91])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.95], t(207) = 0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.80])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.55, 3.90], t(207) = 1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.23], t(207) = 0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ibs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ibs with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: ibs ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 15.21 (95% CI [13.87, 16.54], t(207) = 22.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.75], t(207) = -0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.33])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.56], t(207) = 0.25, p = 0.803; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.76], t(207) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.33])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.30], t(207) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.01])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.43], t(207) = -0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.62])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.86], t(207) = 0.43, p = 0.664; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.81])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.41], t(207) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.62])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.17], t(207) = 1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_e
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_e with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: ers_e ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 11.48 (95% CI [10.67, 12.30], t(207) = 27.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.67], t(207) = 0.58, p = 0.560; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.47])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.30], t(207) = -0.17, p = 0.861; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.07], t(207) = -1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.05])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [0.13, 1.96], t(207) = 2.25, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.09, 1.37])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.42], t(207) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.00])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.51], t(207) = 1.26, p = 0.206; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.06])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.61], t(207) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.86], t(207) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_r
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_r with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: ers_r ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.32) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 10.67 (95% CI [9.86, 11.48], t(207) = 25.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.70], t(207) = 0.58, p = 0.563; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.47])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.62], t(207) = 1.02, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.72], t(207) = 0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.49])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.45], t(207) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.97])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.95], t(207) = 0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.64])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.07], t(207) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.72])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.07], t(207) = 0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.72])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.95], t(207) = 0.78, p = 0.433; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.63])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_pa
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_pa with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: pss_pa ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 45.30 (95% CI [42.80, 47.81], t(207) = 35.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.14, 2.07], t(207) = 0.57, p = 0.572; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.47])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.75], t(207) = -0.59, p = 0.552; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.54, 0.01], t(207) = -1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.68e-03])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.53, 3.04], t(207) = 0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.69])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-4.35, 1.15], t(207) = -1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.26])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-3.71, 1.89], t(207) = -0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.43])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-3.11, 1.94], t(207) = -0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.06], t(207) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_ps
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_ps with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: pss_ps ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 27.81 (95% CI [23.16, 32.46], t(207) = 11.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-3.39, 2.44], t(207) = -0.32, p = 0.749; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.31])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.71], t(207) = 0.03, p = 0.974; Std. beta = 1.91e-03, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.92, 2.89], t(207) = 1.01, p = 0.310; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.36])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.32, 95% CI [-7.59, 2.95], t(207) = -0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.37])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-4.34, 6.06], t(207) = 0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.76])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-6.12, 4.51], t(207) = -0.30, p = 0.766; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.56])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.06, 95% CI [-6.85, 2.72], t(207) = -0.85, p = 0.398; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.46, 95% CI [-3.91, 1.00], t(207) = -1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: pss ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 45.53 (95% CI [38.91, 52.15], t(207) = 13.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-5.08, 3.21], t(207) = -0.44, p = 0.658; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.28])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-2.08, 2.71], t(207) = 0.26, p = 0.796; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.25, 95% CI [-0.46, 4.95], t(207) = 1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.44])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.56, 95% CI [-10.06, 4.95], t(207) = -0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.44])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.41, 95% CI [-4.99, 9.81], t(207) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.86])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-7.42, 7.70], t(207) = 0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.68])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.49, 95% CI [-8.30, 5.32], t(207) = -0.43, p = 0.667; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.84, 95% CI [-5.33, 1.66], t(207) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_responsible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_responsible with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: rki_responsible ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 19.33 (95% CI [16.91, 21.75], t(207) = 15.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.37, 1.68], t(207) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.41])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.85], t(207) = -0.15, p = 0.879; Std. beta = -9.62e-03, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.00], t(207) = -0.11, p = 0.916; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.24])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.30, 95% CI [-0.43, 5.03], t(207) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.22])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.91, 95% CI [-0.79, 4.61], t(207) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.12])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.16, 95% CI [-0.60, 4.91], t(207) = 1.54, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.19])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.45, 95% CI [-1.03, 3.93], t(207) = 1.15, p = 0.251; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.96])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.59], t(207) = 0.32, p = 0.745; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_nonlinear
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_nonlinear with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: rki_nonlinear ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 12.29 (95% CI [10.64, 13.93], t(207) = 14.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.22], t(207) = 0.32, p = 0.750; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.42])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.90], t(207) = 0.67, p = 0.506; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.59], t(207) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.21])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.44, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.28], t(207) = 1.52, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.15])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.23, 95% CI [-0.59, 3.05], t(207) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.07])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-1.02, 2.70], t(207) = 0.89, p = 0.376; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.94])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.34, 2.01], t(207) = 0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.70])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.01, 2.03], t(207) = 1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [5.11e-03, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_peer
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_peer with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: rki_peer ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 20.21 (95% CI [18.94, 21.48], t(207) = 31.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.95], t(207) = 0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.44])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.80], t(207) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.78], t(207) = 0.58, p = 0.560; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.36])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.49], t(207) = 0.09, p = 0.925; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.69])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.33], t(207) = -0.10, p = 0.918; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.61])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.79], t(207) = 0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.82])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.17, 1.42], t(207) = 0.19, p = 0.851; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.65])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.75], t(207) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_expect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_expect with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: rki_expect ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 4.49 (95% CI [3.89, 5.09], t(207) = 14.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.65], t(207) = 1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.60])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.14], t(207) = -0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.07])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.42], t(207) = 0.58, p = 0.560; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.25], t(207) = 1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.15])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.94], t(207) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.87])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.93], t(207) = 0.79, p = 0.432; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.86])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.95e-03, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.59], t(207) = -0.03, p = 0.977; Std. beta = -8.26e-03, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.52], t(207) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: rki ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 56.32 (95% CI [52.74, 59.90], t(207) = 30.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.99], t(207) = 0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.48])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.69], t(207) = 0.44, p = 0.659; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.61], t(207) = 0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = 5.50e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.26])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.39, 95% CI [0.36, 8.43], t(207) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.71, 95% CI [0.06, 1.36])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.35, 95% CI [-0.63, 7.33], t(207) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.18])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.61, 95% CI [-0.46, 7.67], t(207) = 1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.24])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.91, 95% CI [-1.75, 5.57], t(207) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.90])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.73, 3.36], t(207) = 1.26, p = 0.206; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_possible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_possible with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: raq_possible ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 15.27 (95% CI [14.24, 16.30], t(207) = 29.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.47], t(207) = -0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.26])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.70], t(207) = 1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.28], t(207) = -0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.16])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.38], t(207) = 0.41, p = 0.684; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.76])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.24], t(207) = 0.18, p = 0.854; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.68])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.59], t(207) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.88])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.56], t(207) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.86])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.04, 1.45], t(207) = 2.07, p = 0.039; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [0.02, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_difficulty
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_difficulty with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: raq_difficulty ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 12.05 (95% CI [11.27, 12.84], t(207) = 29.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.29], t(207) = -0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.21])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.43], t(207) = 0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.31], t(207) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.23])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.22], t(207) = 0.74, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.89])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.06], t(207) = 0.41, p = 0.680; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.77])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.57], t(207) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.14])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.35], t(207) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.98])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.71], t(207) = 0.92, p = 0.359; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: raq ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 27.32 (95% CI [25.64, 29.00], t(207) = 31.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.66], t(207) = -0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.23])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.04], t(207) = 1.07, p = 0.286; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.49], t(207) = -0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.17])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.45], t(207) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.84])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.57, 2.15], t(207) = 0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.74])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.80, 3.00], t(207) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.03])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.79], t(207) = 1.23, p = 0.219; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.95])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.98], t(207) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
who
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict who with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: who ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 15.42 (95% CI [12.84, 18.00], t(207) = 11.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.47, 1.78], t(207) = 0.19, p = 0.853; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.41])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.42], t(207) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.97, 1.24], t(207) = 0.24, p = 0.810; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.28])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-4.47, 1.36], t(207) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.31])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.16, 95% CI [-4.04, 1.71], t(207) = -0.79, p = 0.428; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.39])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.38, 95% CI [-4.32, 1.56], t(207) = -0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.36])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-3.52, 1.77], t(207) = -0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.35, 1.50], t(207) = 0.10, p = 0.919; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
phq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict phq with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: phq ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 4.13 (95% CI [1.92, 6.33], t(207) = 3.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.34, 1.39], t(207) = 0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = 7.30e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.38])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.42], t(207) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.73], t(207) = -0.06, p = 0.950; Std. beta = -6.57e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.20])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-2.36, 2.69], t(207) = 0.13, p = 0.900; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.73])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -5.83e-03, 95% CI [-2.49, 2.48], t(207) = -4.59e-03, p = 0.996; Std. beta = -1.59e-03, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.68])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-2.85, 2.24], t(207) = -0.24, p = 0.813; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.61])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-3.03, 1.55], t(207) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.31], t(207) = 0.70, p = 0.487; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
gad
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict gad with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: gad ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 3.65 (95% CI [1.60, 5.71], t(207) = 3.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.95], t(207) = -0.51, p = 0.610; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.27])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.39], t(207) = -0.90, p = 0.368; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.59], t(207) = -0.51, p = 0.608; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.17])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-2.27, 2.41], t(207) = 0.06, p = 0.954; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.69])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.40, 2.21], t(207) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.63])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-2.06, 2.65], t(207) = 0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.76])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-2.47, 1.77], t(207) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.44], t(207) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_pcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_pcs with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: nb_pcs ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 46.76 (95% CI [42.75, 50.78], t(207) = 22.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-2.75, 2.30], t(207) = -0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.33])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.93, 2.06], t(207) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.17, 1.23], t(207) = -0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.18])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 4.36, 95% CI [-0.18, 8.90], t(207) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.27])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 4.06, 95% CI [-0.42, 8.54], t(207) = 1.78, p = 0.075; Std. beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.22])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 5.33, 95% CI [0.75, 9.90], t(207) = 2.28, p = 0.022; Std. beta = 0.76, 95% CI [0.11, 1.41])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 6.12, 95% CI [2.00, 10.24], t(207) = 2.91, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.87, 95% CI [0.28, 1.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.96], t(207) = 0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_mcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_mcs with group, number_volunteer_r, time_point and family_income (formula: nb_mcs ~ 1 + group + number_volunteer_r + time_point + group * time_point + family_income). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control, number_volunteer_r = 0, time_point = 1st and family_income = 0_10000, is at 50.95 (95% CI [46.02, 55.88], t(207) = 20.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-2.71, 3.53], t(207) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.42])
- The effect of number volunteer r is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.17], t(207) = 0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-1.15, 3.33], t(207) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.40])
- The effect of family income [10001_20000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-6.80, 4.28], t(207) = -0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.51])
- The effect of family income [20001_30000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-6.79, 4.15], t(207) = -0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.49])
- The effect of family income [30001_40000] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.80, 95% CI [-7.38, 3.79], t(207) = -0.63, p = 0.528; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.45])
- The effect of family income [40000_above] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-5.35, 4.71], t(207) = -0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.56])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.62, 95% CI [-4.52, 1.28], t(207) = -1.09, p = 0.274; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | null | 3 | 922.985 | 933.138 | -458.492 | 916.985 | |||
sets | random | 11 | 933.039 | 970.269 | -455.520 | 911.039 | 5.946 | 8 | 0.653 |
setv | null | 3 | 804.334 | 814.487 | -399.167 | 798.334 | |||
setv | random | 11 | 816.027 | 853.257 | -397.014 | 794.027 | 4.306 | 8 | 0.828 |
maks | null | 3 | 1,131.219 | 1,141.373 | -562.610 | 1,125.219 | |||
maks | random | 11 | 1,142.490 | 1,179.719 | -560.245 | 1,120.490 | 4.729 | 8 | 0.786 |
ibs | null | 3 | 927.317 | 937.471 | -460.659 | 921.317 | |||
ibs | random | 11 | 935.313 | 972.543 | -456.657 | 913.313 | 8.004 | 8 | 0.433 |
ers_e | null | 3 | 732.336 | 742.489 | -363.168 | 726.336 | |||
ers_e | random | 11 | 737.352 | 774.582 | -357.676 | 715.352 | 10.984 | 8 | 0.203 |
ers_r | null | 3 | 787.411 | 797.565 | -390.706 | 781.411 | |||
ers_r | random | 11 | 795.983 | 833.213 | -386.992 | 773.983 | 7.428 | 8 | 0.491 |
pss_pa | null | 3 | 1,238.220 | 1,248.374 | -616.110 | 1,232.220 | |||
pss_pa | random | 11 | 1,245.229 | 1,282.458 | -611.614 | 1,223.229 | 8.992 | 8 | 0.343 |
pss_ps | null | 3 | 1,462.634 | 1,472.788 | -728.317 | 1,456.634 | |||
pss_ps | random | 11 | 1,473.093 | 1,510.322 | -725.546 | 1,451.093 | 5.541 | 8 | 0.698 |
pss | null | 3 | 1,617.757 | 1,627.910 | -805.878 | 1,611.757 | |||
pss | random | 11 | 1,626.738 | 1,663.967 | -802.369 | 1,604.738 | 7.019 | 8 | 0.535 |
rki_responsible | null | 3 | 1,188.126 | 1,198.279 | -591.063 | 1,182.126 | |||
rki_responsible | random | 11 | 1,200.237 | 1,237.466 | -589.118 | 1,178.237 | 3.889 | 8 | 0.867 |
rki_nonlinear | null | 3 | 1,042.818 | 1,052.972 | -518.409 | 1,036.818 | |||
rki_nonlinear | random | 11 | 1,047.877 | 1,085.106 | -512.938 | 1,025.877 | 10.942 | 8 | 0.205 |
rki_peer | null | 3 | 921.588 | 931.742 | -457.794 | 915.588 | |||
rki_peer | random | 11 | 935.473 | 972.703 | -456.737 | 913.473 | 2.115 | 8 | 0.977 |
rki_expect | null | 3 | 632.094 | 642.248 | -313.047 | 626.094 | |||
rki_expect | random | 11 | 631.929 | 669.158 | -304.965 | 609.929 | 16.165 | 8 | 0.040 |
rki | null | 3 | 1,368.056 | 1,378.209 | -681.028 | 1,362.056 | |||
rki | random | 11 | 1,373.365 | 1,410.594 | -675.682 | 1,351.365 | 10.691 | 8 | 0.220 |
raq_possible | null | 3 | 855.431 | 865.585 | -424.716 | 849.431 | |||
raq_possible | random | 11 | 863.987 | 901.216 | -420.993 | 841.987 | 7.445 | 8 | 0.490 |
raq_difficulty | null | 3 | 716.342 | 726.495 | -355.171 | 710.342 | |||
raq_difficulty | random | 11 | 726.836 | 764.065 | -352.418 | 704.836 | 5.506 | 8 | 0.702 |
raq | null | 3 | 1,046.297 | 1,056.450 | -520.148 | 1,040.297 | |||
raq | random | 11 | 1,054.787 | 1,092.017 | -516.394 | 1,032.787 | 7.509 | 8 | 0.483 |
who | null | 3 | 1,210.905 | 1,221.058 | -602.452 | 1,204.905 | |||
who | random | 11 | 1,224.375 | 1,261.605 | -601.188 | 1,202.375 | 2.530 | 8 | 0.960 |
phq | null | 3 | 1,099.820 | 1,109.974 | -546.910 | 1,093.820 | |||
phq | random | 11 | 1,111.711 | 1,148.941 | -544.856 | 1,089.711 | 4.109 | 8 | 0.847 |
gad | null | 3 | 1,094.849 | 1,105.002 | -544.424 | 1,088.849 | |||
gad | random | 11 | 1,108.151 | 1,145.381 | -543.076 | 1,086.151 | 2.697 | 8 | 0.952 |
nb_pcs | null | 3 | 1,410.332 | 1,420.486 | -702.166 | 1,404.332 | |||
nb_pcs | random | 11 | 1,415.522 | 1,452.751 | -696.761 | 1,393.522 | 10.810 | 8 | 0.213 |
nb_mcs | null | 3 | 1,504.786 | 1,514.939 | -749.393 | 1,498.786 | |||
nb_mcs | random | 11 | 1,518.541 | 1,555.770 | -748.270 | 1,496.541 | 2.245 | 8 | 0.973 |
Post hoc analysis text
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
sets | 1st | 58 | 19.08 ± 2.22 | 60 | 19.38 ± 2.23 | 0.430 | -0.189 | ||
sets | 2nd | 53 | 18.99 ± 2.24 | 0.057 | 47 | 19.68 ± 2.17 | -0.182 | 0.094 | -0.428 |
setv | 1st | 58 | 11.04 ± 1.78 | 60 | 11.32 ± 1.78 | 0.358 | -0.258 | ||
setv | 2nd | 53 | 11.31 ± 1.78 | -0.245 | 47 | 11.31 ± 1.71 | 0.010 | 0.990 | -0.004 |
maks | 1st | 58 | 44.36 ± 3.99 | 60 | 44.88 ± 3.94 | 0.455 | -0.246 | ||
maks | 2nd | 53 | 44.28 ± 3.95 | 0.040 | 47 | 44.87 ± 3.73 | 0.006 | 0.416 | -0.280 |
ibs | 1st | 58 | 15.45 ± 2.46 | 60 | 15.36 ± 2.44 | 0.829 | 0.070 | ||
ibs | 2nd | 53 | 15.65 ± 2.45 | -0.150 | 47 | 15.99 ± 2.31 | -0.482 | 0.439 | -0.262 |
ers_e | 1st | 58 | 12.06 ± 1.52 | 60 | 12.22 ± 1.51 | 0.561 | -0.172 | ||
ers_e | 2nd | 53 | 11.76 ± 1.51 | 0.343 | 47 | 12.29 ± 1.44 | -0.077 | 0.058 | -0.592 |
ers_r | 1st | 58 | 10.96 ± 1.59 | 60 | 11.12 ± 1.61 | 0.564 | -0.129 | ||
ers_r | 2nd | 53 | 11.17 ± 1.61 | -0.168 | 47 | 11.60 ± 1.57 | -0.385 | 0.150 | -0.346 |
pss_pa | 1st | 58 | 44.63 ± 4.72 | 60 | 45.10 ± 4.71 | 0.572 | -0.153 | ||
pss_pa | 2nd | 53 | 43.37 ± 4.73 | 0.416 | 47 | 44.23 ± 4.54 | 0.285 | 0.322 | -0.285 |
pss_ps | 1st | 58 | 26.95 ± 8.55 | 60 | 26.48 ± 8.45 | 0.750 | 0.106 | ||
pss_ps | 2nd | 53 | 27.94 ± 8.48 | -0.221 | 47 | 26.01 ± 7.99 | 0.105 | 0.215 | 0.433 |
pss | 1st | 58 | 45.33 ± 12.17 | 60 | 44.40 ± 12.02 | 0.659 | 0.148 | ||
pss | 2nd | 53 | 47.58 ± 12.06 | -0.354 | 47 | 44.81 ± 11.37 | -0.065 | 0.210 | 0.437 |
rki_responsible | 1st | 58 | 20.87 ± 4.48 | 60 | 21.03 ± 4.44 | 0.844 | -0.062 | ||
rki_responsible | 2nd | 53 | 20.82 ± 4.45 | 0.023 | 47 | 21.20 ± 4.22 | -0.068 | 0.642 | -0.153 |
rki_nonlinear | 1st | 58 | 13.13 ± 3.07 | 60 | 13.30 ± 3.06 | 0.750 | -0.093 | ||
rki_nonlinear | 2nd | 53 | 12.94 ± 3.07 | 0.101 | 47 | 14.13 ± 2.93 | -0.455 | 0.035 | -0.650 |
rki_peer | 1st | 58 | 20.39 ± 2.37 | 60 | 20.54 ± 2.36 | 0.724 | -0.103 | ||
rki_peer | 2nd | 53 | 20.57 ± 2.37 | -0.126 | 47 | 20.69 ± 2.26 | -0.103 | 0.793 | -0.080 |
rki_expect | 1st | 58 | 4.68 ± 1.13 | 60 | 4.94 ± 1.14 | 0.185 | -0.340 | ||
rki_expect | 2nd | 53 | 4.77 ± 1.14 | -0.124 | 47 | 5.13 ± 1.10 | -0.245 | 0.091 | -0.460 |
rki | 1st | 58 | 59.07 ± 6.63 | 60 | 59.81 ± 6.57 | 0.525 | -0.197 | ||
rki | 2nd | 53 | 59.11 ± 6.60 | -0.009 | 47 | 61.16 ± 6.25 | -0.364 | 0.091 | -0.552 |
raq_possible | 1st | 58 | 15.61 ± 1.95 | 60 | 15.41 ± 1.95 | 0.569 | 0.151 | ||
raq_possible | 2nd | 53 | 15.35 ± 1.96 | 0.200 | 47 | 15.90 ± 1.88 | -0.377 | 0.129 | -0.426 |
raq_difficulty | 1st | 58 | 12.44 ± 1.47 | 60 | 12.23 ± 1.46 | 0.414 | 0.238 | ||
raq_difficulty | 2nd | 53 | 12.38 ± 1.47 | 0.070 | 47 | 12.39 ± 1.40 | -0.187 | 0.952 | -0.019 |
raq | 1st | 58 | 28.04 ± 3.13 | 60 | 27.63 ± 3.11 | 0.459 | 0.218 | ||
raq | 2nd | 53 | 27.74 ± 3.13 | 0.160 | 47 | 28.30 ± 2.98 | -0.359 | 0.333 | -0.301 |
who | 1st | 58 | 14.57 ± 4.76 | 60 | 14.72 ± 4.71 | 0.853 | -0.059 | ||
who | 2nd | 53 | 14.70 ± 4.73 | -0.052 | 47 | 14.93 ± 4.47 | -0.081 | 0.793 | -0.088 |
phq | 1st | 58 | 3.87 ± 4.00 | 60 | 3.89 ± 3.92 | 0.969 | -0.015 | ||
phq | 2nd | 53 | 3.84 ± 3.93 | 0.014 | 47 | 4.21 ± 3.66 | -0.183 | 0.607 | -0.212 |
gad | 1st | 58 | 3.53 ± 3.77 | 60 | 3.20 ± 3.71 | 0.611 | 0.178 | ||
gad | 2nd | 53 | 3.32 ± 3.72 | 0.112 | 47 | 3.39 ± 3.50 | -0.101 | 0.921 | -0.036 |
nb_pcs | 1st | 58 | 50.91 ± 7.41 | 60 | 50.69 ± 7.33 | 0.864 | 0.056 | ||
nb_pcs | 2nd | 53 | 50.45 ± 7.35 | 0.117 | 47 | 50.99 ± 6.95 | -0.074 | 0.689 | -0.135 |
nb_mcs | 1st | 58 | 50.08 ± 9.16 | 60 | 50.49 ± 9.09 | 0.798 | -0.077 | ||
nb_mcs | 2nd | 53 | 51.17 ± 9.13 | -0.207 | 47 | 49.96 ± 8.67 | 0.100 | 0.470 | 0.229 |
Between group
sets
1st
t(181.62) = 0.79, p = 0.430, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.07)
2st
t(192.93) = 1.68, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)
setv
1st
t(161.68) = 0.92, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.90)
2st
t(177.12) = 0.01, p = 0.990, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.65)
maks
1st
t(146.91) = 0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.89)
2st
t(162.13) = 0.82, p = 0.416, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.84 to 2.02)
ibs
1st
t(148.25) = -0.22, p = 0.829, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.75)
2st
t(163.62) = 0.78, p = 0.439, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.23)
ers_e
1st
t(156.15) = 0.58, p = 0.561, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.67)
2st
t(171.88) = 1.90, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.07)
ers_r
1st
t(190.90) = 0.58, p = 0.564, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.71)
2st
t(198.93) = 1.45, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.02)
pss_pa
1st
t(165.40) = 0.57, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.16 to 2.08)
2st
t(180.42) = 0.99, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.85 to 2.57)
pss_ps
1st
t(145.88) = -0.32, p = 0.750, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.41 to 2.46)
2st
t(160.96) = -1.25, p = 0.215, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-4.99 to 1.13)
pss
1st
t(145.80) = -0.44, p = 0.659, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-5.12 to 3.25)
2st
t(160.87) = -1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-7.13 to 1.58)
rki_responsible
1st
t(150.42) = 0.20, p = 0.844, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.69)
2st
t(165.99) = 0.47, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.99)
rki_nonlinear
1st
t(157.52) = 0.32, p = 0.750, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.23)
2st
t(173.21) = 2.12, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.30)
rki_peer
1st
t(157.70) = 0.35, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.96)
2st
t(173.39) = 0.26, p = 0.793, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.97)
rki_expect
1st
t(172.47) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.13 to 0.65)
2st
t(186.22) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.77)
rki
1st
t(151.69) = 0.64, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.54 to 3.01)
2st
t(167.33) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.33 to 4.43)
raq_possible
1st
t(168.42) = -0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.48)
2st
t(182.97) = 1.52, p = 0.129, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.26)
raq_difficulty
1st
t(157.58) = -0.82, p = 0.414, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.30)
2st
t(173.27) = 0.06, p = 0.952, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.55)
raq
1st
t(156.49) = -0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.48 to 0.67)
2st
t(172.21) = 0.97, p = 0.333, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.69)
who
1st
t(149.03) = 0.19, p = 0.853, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.79)
2st
t(164.48) = 0.26, p = 0.793, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.94)
phq
1st
t(134.95) = 0.04, p = 0.969, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.40)
2st
t(147.46) = 0.52, p = 0.607, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.79)
gad
1st
t(142.72) = -0.51, p = 0.611, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.63 to 0.96)
2st
t(157.28) = 0.10, p = 0.921, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.41)
nb_pcs
1st
t(148.39) = -0.17, p = 0.864, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.77 to 2.32)
2st
t(163.78) = 0.40, p = 0.689, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-2.12 to 3.19)
nb_mcs
1st
t(154.21) = 0.26, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.74 to 3.55)
2st
t(169.93) = -0.72, p = 0.470, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-4.51 to 2.09)
Within treatment group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(129.16) = 0.79, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.03)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(122.29) = -0.04, p = 0.967, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.51)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(116.32) = -0.03, p = 0.979, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.99)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(116.91) = 2.01, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.27)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(120.17) = 0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.49)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(132.10) = 1.70, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.04)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(123.66) = -1.22, p = 0.227, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.27 to 0.54)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(115.87) = -0.44, p = 0.662, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.60 to 1.66)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(115.83) = 0.27, p = 0.789, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.61 to 3.43)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(117.83) = 0.29, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.34)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(120.70) = 1.92, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.70)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(120.77) = 0.44, p = 0.664, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.81)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(126.14) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.54)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(118.36) = 1.52, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.40 to 3.11)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(124.73) = 1.61, p = 0.109, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.08)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(120.72) = 0.79, p = 0.431, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.58)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(120.30) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.53)
who
1st vs 2st
t(117.24) = 0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.44)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(110.70) = 0.75, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.16)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(114.45) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.09)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(116.97) = 0.31, p = 0.759, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.60 to 2.19)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(119.39) = -0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-3.01 to 1.96)
Within control group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(115.78) = -0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.59)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(111.88) = 1.14, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.74)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(108.50) = -0.18, p = 0.855, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.83)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(108.83) = 0.69, p = 0.492, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.77)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(110.68) = -1.59, p = 0.116, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.08)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(117.49) = 0.80, p = 0.426, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.73)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(112.65) = -1.94, p = 0.055, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.55 to 0.03)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(108.24) = 1.01, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.91)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(108.22) = 1.62, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.49 to 4.99)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(109.36) = -0.11, p = 0.916, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.12 to 1.01)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(110.98) = -0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.97 to 0.60)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(111.02) = 0.58, p = 0.562, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.79)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(114.05) = 0.58, p = 0.562, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.42)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(109.66) = 0.04, p = 0.966, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.63)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(113.26) = -0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.29)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(110.99) = -0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.32)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(110.75) = -0.74, p = 0.460, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.50)
who
1st vs 2st
t(109.02) = 0.24, p = 0.811, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.98 to 1.25)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(105.26) = -0.06, p = 0.950, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.74)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(107.43) = -0.51, p = 0.609, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.60)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(108.87) = -0.54, p = 0.593, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.19 to 1.26)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(110.24) = 0.95, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.18 to 3.36)
Plot
