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.