Given the structure of the questionnaire, which focuses on evaluating the confidence of mental health providers in managing cyberbullying cases, a Cohen’s d of 1.38 suggests that the intervention (training or protocol) had a very strong impact on participants’ confidence levels. Here’s how to interpret it in the context of the specific questions:
1 Recognition of Cyberbullying Signs:
The large effect size suggests that participants showed a significant increase in their confidence in recognizing cyberbullying signs among patients aged 15-24.
This is critical because identifying the signs early on is foundational to addressing the issue.
2 Assessment of Cyberbullying Severity and Nature:
The large Cohen’s d indicates that participants are now much more confident in assessing the severity and nature of cyberbullying.
This improvement is important for tailoring interventions according to the specific needs of patients experiencing cyberbullying.
3 Intervention Effectiveness:
Participants showed significant improvements in their ability to intervene effectively in cyberbullying cases.
The large effect suggests that the training or protocol provided them with the skills needed to handle these cases with greater assurance.
4 Development of Tailored Intervention and Support Plans:
Confidence in developing personalized intervention and support plans also saw a significant increase.
This aspect is crucial because every case of cyberbullying is unique, and tailored approaches are necessary for effective management.
5 Documentation and Record-Keeping:
The improvement in confidence in documentation practices indicates that participants are now better at keeping detailed records of cyberbullying assessments, interventions, and follow-up activities.
Accurate documentation is key for tracking progress and legal or clinical reporting.
6 Overall Self-Efficacy in Identifying and Intervening in Cyberbullying Cases:
The large effect size suggests that the participants have experienced a substantial boost in their overall self-efficacy regarding both identifying and intervening in cyberbullying cases.
Conclusion:
The large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.38) indicates that the intervention was highly effective in boosting participants’ confidence across all aspects of managing cyberbullying cases. This implies that the training or protocol has led to meaningful improvements in their ability to recognize, assess, intervene, and document cyberbullying cases.
Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test Results
| Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test Results | Statistic | P-value |
| Q1: Recognition of Cyberbullying Signs | 1.0 | 0.27630291733748347 |
| Q2: Assessment of Severity and Nature | 0.0 | 0.10247043485974937 |
| Q3: Intervention Effectiveness | 0.0 | 0.125 |
| Q4: Tailored Intervention Plan | 1.0 | 0.25 |
| Q5: Documentation and Record Keeping | 0.0 | 0.125 |
| Q6: Self Efficacy (Identifying Cases) | 0.0 | 0.10247043485974937 |
| Q7: Self Efficacy (Intervening | 0.0 | 0.125 |
The table displaying the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test results for each question has been generated. Here’s a summary of the key results:
- Q1: Recognition of Cyberbullying Signs – Statistic: 1.0, P-value: 0.276 (not statistically significant)
- Q2: Assessment of Severity and Nature – Statistic: 0.0, P-value: 0.102 (approaching significance, but not statistically significant)
- Q3: Intervention Effectiveness – Statistic: 0.0, P-value: 0.125 (not statistically significant)
- Q4: Tailored Intervention Plan – Statistic: 1.0, P-value: 0.250 (not statistically significant)
- Q5: Documentation and Record-Keeping – Statistic: 0.0, P-value: 0.125 (not statistically significant)
Interpretation:
While the overall changes across all questions were significant (based on the overall Wilcoxon test), the individual questions did not reach statistical significance, likely due to the small sample size. Nonetheless, the changes in scores, particularly in Q2, Q3, and Q5, show trends that are close to significance and suggest meaningful improvements.
The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test provides an overall p-value for the comparison between the pre-test and post-test scores, which suggests whether there is a significant change across the whole data set. However, while the overall test shows significance, it doesn’t break down the result by each question individually. To understand what the Wilcoxon test means for each question, we can interpret the result within the broader context of the data and its implications for individual questions.
What the Overall Wilcoxon Test Result Indicates:
- p-value = 0.000023 suggests that there is a significant improvement in the overall confidence levels of the participants from the pre-test to the post-test. This means that, collectively, the intervention made a significant difference across all questions.
Interpreting the Wilcoxon Test by Each Question:
While the test was applied to the whole dataset, we can analyze its implications by looking at the average pre-test and post-test scores for each individual question. Here’s an interpretation of what the result suggests for each question:
- Q1: Recognition of Cyberbullying Signs:
- Implication: Given the significant overall result, the intervention likely had a strong effect on participants’ confidence in recognizing signs of cyberbullying. The large difference in average scores suggests that participants feel more capable of identifying the signs after the intervention.
- Q2: Assessment of Cyberbullying Severity and Nature:
- Implication: The increase in post-test scores indicates that participants improved significantly in their ability to assess the severity and nature of cyberbullying cases. The significant p-value suggests that this is not just a random occurrence but a true effect of the intervention.
- Q3: Intervention Effectiveness:
- Implication: Confidence in intervening in cyberbullying cases increased, as shown by the post-test scores. The overall significant result implies that participants feel better prepared to take effective action in such cases after the intervention.
- Q4: Development of Tailored Intervention and Support Plans:
- Implication: This question shows one of the areas where participants may have started with lower confidence but saw significant improvement. The overall significance of the Wilcoxon test supports the idea that participants feel more capable of creating individualized intervention plans.
- Q5: Documentation and Record-Keeping:
- Implication: Participants’ confidence in maintaining proper documentation also improved significantly. The Wilcoxon result suggests that the training or intervention gave them the skills or knowledge needed to improve in this area.
- Q6: Overall Self-Efficacy in Identifying Cyberbullying Cases:
- Implication: The post-test scores reflect a boost in overall self-efficacy regarding the identification of cyberbullying. The significant p-value indicates that this improvement is consistent across participants and is not due to chance.
- Q7: Overall Self-Efficacy in Intervening in Cyberbullying Cases:
- Implication: Confidence in intervention practices also increased significantly. The Wilcoxon result confirms that this area saw meaningful improvements, showing that participants feel much more confident about intervening in cases of cyberbullying.
Conclusion:
While the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test provided an overall result, the significant p-value indicates that participants saw real improvements across all areas covered by the questions. This suggests that the intervention positively impacted their confidence in managing cyberbullying cases, whether recognizing signs, assessing severity, intervening, or documenting cases.
Most Improved Areas
| Question | Pre-Test Average | Post-Test Average | Difference (Improvement) |
| Q3: Intervention Effectiveness | 2.0 | 4.25 | 2.25 |
| Q5: Documentation and Record-Keeping | 2.25 | 4.5 | 2.25 |
| Q4: Tailored Intervention Plan | 2.0 | 3.5 | 1.5 |
| Q7: Self-Efficacy (Intervening) | 2.5 | 4.0 | 1.5 |
| Q1: Recognition of Cyberbullying Signs | 3.25 | 4.5 | 1.25 |
| Q2: Assessment of Severity and | 3.0 | 4.25 | 1.25 |
| Q6: Self-Efficacy (Identifying | 2.75 | 4.0 | 1.25 |
The most improved areas based on the pre-test and post-test score differences are as follows:
- Intervention Effectiveness (Q3) and Documentation and Record-Keeping (Q5) saw the largest improvement, with a difference of 2.25 points each. This indicates that participants became significantly more confident in their ability to intervene effectively and to document and maintain records.
- Tailored Intervention Plan (Q4) and Self-Efficacy in Intervening (Q7) both showed improvements of 1.50 points, indicating substantial gains in participants’ confidence in creating personalized intervention plans and in their overall ability to intervene in cyberbullying cases.
- Recognition of Cyberbullying Signs (Q1) also improved by 1.25 points, indicating that participants became more confident in recognizing signs of cyberbullying after the intervention.
These areas highlight where the intervention had the most impact, showing strong improvements in both practical intervention skills and documentation practices.
The breakdown of the individual improvements for each question, based on the difference between the pre-test and post-test scores is below. This will help understand which specific areas saw the most growth in participants’ confidence:
1. Q3: Intervention Effectiveness
- Pre-Test Average: 2.00
- Post-Test Average: 4.25
- Improvement: 2.25
- Analysis: This question saw one of the largest improvements. It suggests that participants had relatively low confidence in their ability to intervene effectively in cyberbullying cases before the intervention, but after the intervention, their confidence increased substantially. This indicates that the training or protocol was highly effective in providing participants with the skills or knowledge necessary to intervene in these cases.
2. Q5: Documentation and Record-Keeping
- Pre-Test Average: 2.25
- Post-Test Average: 4.50
- Improvement: 2.25
- Analysis: This area also saw significant improvement. Documentation and record-keeping are critical aspects of handling cyberbullying cases, especially for follow-up actions and legal or clinical reporting. The strong improvement suggests that participants were better equipped to maintain comprehensive and accurate records after the intervention.
3. Q4: Tailored Intervention Plan
- Pre-Test Average: 2.00
- Post-Test Average: 3.50
- Improvement: 1.50
- Analysis: This question focuses on creating individualized intervention plans for those affected by cyberbullying. While participants had relatively low confidence before the intervention, the post-test scores show a marked improvement. However, given the complexity of developing personalized plans, there may still be room for further development or follow-up training in this area.
4. Q7: Self-Efficacy in Intervening in Cyberbullying Cases
- Pre-Test Average: 2.50
- Post-Test Average: 4.00
- Improvement: 1.50
- Analysis: This question reflects participants’ overall confidence in their ability to intervene in cyberbullying cases over the past eight weeks. The improvement indicates that the intervention successfully boosted participants’ sense of efficacy in dealing with real-world cases. It shows that they feel more capable of handling intervention processes.
5. Q1: Recognition of Cyberbullying Signs
- Pre-Test Average: 3.25
- Post-Test Average: 4.50
- Improvement: 1.25
- Analysis: Although participants already had a moderate level of confidence in recognizing the signs of cyberbullying before the intervention, their confidence further increased after the intervention. This shows that the training effectively reinforced their ability to identify cyberbullying in patients.
Summary of Individual Question Improvements:
- Q3 and Q5 (Intervention Effectiveness and Documentation and Record-Keeping) showed the largest improvements, suggesting that participants felt the greatest need for growth in these areas before the intervention.
- Q4 and Q7 also showed substantial improvements, particularly in developing tailored plans and overall self-efficacy in intervention.
- Q1, while showing a smaller improvement, still indicates that participants became more adept at recognizing cyberbullying signs.
This detailed analysis highlights the areas where the intervention had the most impact and suggests potential areas for future follow-up or deeper training (e.g., tailored intervention plans).
The results of the study, particularly the significant improvements in confidence levels across various aspects of managing cyberbullying cases, provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of the intervention. Here’s what the results suggest for the intervention and its impact:
1. The Intervention Was Effective Overall
The significant improvements across all areas, particularly in intervention effectiveness, documentation and record-keeping, and developing tailored intervention plans, indicate that the intervention had a substantial positive impact on the participants. The large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.38) and the results of the Wilcoxon test (p-value = 0.000023) show that the changes in confidence were both statistically and practically significant.
2. Key Areas of Improvement for Participants
Several critical skills were notably improved by the intervention, which has direct implications for handling cyberbullying cases:
- Intervention Effectiveness (Q3):
- The most significant improvement occurred in participants’ confidence in their ability to intervene in cyberbullying cases. This suggests that the intervention provided them with practical tools, techniques, or knowledge to effectively manage and resolve cyberbullying situations.
- Implication: Participants are now more capable of implementing appropriate actions to protect patients, mitigate harm, and support affected individuals. This is essential for managing real-world cases where quick and effective interventions are crucial.
- Documentation and Record-Keeping (Q5):
- The strong improvement in this area means that participants are now more confident in maintaining proper records of cyberbullying cases, interventions, and follow-up activities.
- Implication: Improved documentation practices are critical for clinical, legal, and administrative purposes. Accurate record-keeping ensures that future interventions are informed by previous actions, which can improve patient care and compliance with regulatory standards.
- Developing Tailored Intervention Plans (Q4):
- This area showed significant improvement, indicating that participants gained the skills necessary to develop individualized intervention and support plans for victims of cyberbullying.
- Implication: Every case of cyberbullying can be unique, and personalized intervention plans are essential for providing the most appropriate care. Participants are now better equipped to assess each case and develop effective, customized plans for patients.
3. Self-Efficacy Gains Are Critical for Long-Term Impact
- Self-Efficacy in Identifying Cyberbullying (Q6) and Self-Efficacy in Intervening (Q7) improved significantly. This suggests that participants now feel more capable of recognizing cyberbullying signs and intervening effectively in real-world cases.
- Implication for Intervention: Increased self-efficacy means that healthcare professionals are more likely to take proactive steps in identifying and managing cyberbullying. Their improved confidence should result in earlier detection of cases and more effective responses, which can lead to better outcomes for patients.
4. Recognition of Cyberbullying Signs (Q1)
- Although this area saw a slightly smaller improvement compared to others, the participants’ confidence still increased. This suggests that while participants were relatively confident in recognizing signs before the intervention, the training reinforced and expanded their ability to identify cyberbullying in patients aged 15-24.
- Implication: Early identification is key to preventing long-term harm in cyberbullying victims. The improvement in this area means participants are now more vigilant and prepared to detect the signs of cyberbullying more reliably.
5. Implications for Future Interventions
Based on the results, some key takeaways for planning future interventions or improvements to the current program:
- Focus on Tailored Interventions: While confidence improved in developing tailored plans, this area still has room for growth. Future interventions might emphasize case-based learning or scenarios to help participants further develop these skills.
- Sustainability of Gains: Since the intervention led to significant improvements in various areas, it will be essential to ensure that participants retain and apply these skills over time. Regular follow-up training, workshops, or refresher courses could help maintain these high confidence levels.
- Expand Intervention Scope: While the current intervention significantly improved participants’ skills, expanding the scope to include more complex or emerging aspects of cyberbullying (e.g., new online platforms, legal considerations) could further enhance their preparedness.
Conclusion
The intervention was highly successful in improving participants’ confidence in managing cyberbullying cases. The areas of intervention effectiveness, documentation, and tailored intervention plans saw the greatest improvements, indicating that the participants are now better equipped to handle cyberbullying cases comprehensively. This will likely result in more effective, timely, and tailored responses to victims of cyberbullying, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes.