Skip to main content

Table 2 Standardized  T  -scores of attitude (pros, cons), social influence (modeling, support) and self-efficacy (social, emotional, routine) in the stage groups

From: Are the stages of change relevant for the development and implementation of a web-based tailored alcohol intervention? A cross-sectional study

 

PC; n = 58

CP; n = 39

AM; n = 73

LSD contrasts

Pros

49.76

52.50

48.09

PC, CP; PC, AM; CP > AM

Cons

49.73

51.14

49.32

PC, CP, AM

Social modeling

46.69

48.66

52.97

PC, CP < AM

Social support

47.49

52.45

51.09

PC < CP, AM

Social self-efficacy

48.83

44.03

54.14

PC > CP < AM; PC < AM

Emotional self-efficacy

50.09

42.05

54.05

PC > CP < AM; PC < AM

Routine self-efficacy

49.70

44.15

53.45

PC > CP < AM; PC < AM

  1. Note. PC = precontemplation; CP = contemplation/preparation; AM = action/maintenance.
  2. CP < AM: the mean score of CP is significantly lower than that of AM.
  3. PC, CP, AM: the mean scores of PC, CP and AM are equal.