A two-year perspective: who may ease the burden of girls’ loneliness in school?

Table 1 Distribution of response options for the outcome and the independent variables

Variables	Response options					Total	Median	IQR^#
	1	2	3	4	5
	%	%	%	%	%
School wellbeing T2^a	3.4	3.4	42.4	50.8		118	4	3–4
School wellbeing T1^a	0	6.8	47.0	46.2		117	3	3–4
Academic problems T1^b	34.5	56.3	7.6	1.7		119	2	1–2
Victimisations T1^c	50.4	24.4	19.3	3.4	2.5	119	1	1–3
Loneliness T1^c	52.1	24.4	20.2	1.7	1.7	119	1	1–2
Class advisor T1^a	16.0	17.9	16.0	50.0		106	3.5	2–4
Other teachers T1^a	21.1	22.1	18.9	37.9		95	3	2–4
Students T1^a	15.1	26.4	13.2	45.3		106	3	2–4
Parents T1^a	3.6	16.2	8.1	72.1		111	4	3–4
Other adults T1^a	26.7	36.0	17.4	19.8		86	2	1–3
Class advisor T2^a	11.1	21.4	13.7	53.8		117	4	2–4
Other teachers T2^a	17.5	28.1	21.9	32.5		114	3	2–4
Students T2^a	0.9	25.0	21.6	52.6		116	4	2–4
Parents T2^a	3.4	7.6	10.2	78.8		118	4	4–4
Other adults T2^a	25.9	33.3	18.5	22.2		108	2	1–3

^#25-75th percentile.
^aFrom 1 (worst) to 4 (best).
^bFrom 1 (best) to 4 (worst).
^cFrom 1 (best) to 5 (worst).
Note: Loneliness at T1 was the variable of special interest with School wellbeing at T2 as the outcome. Adjustments included School wellbeing, Academic problems, and Victimisation; all at T1. People, whom the girls trusted to contact at T1, were assessed to see if any of those groups of persons modified the association of loneliness with later school wellbeing. Corresponding groups of persons at T2 were included as adjustment.

ISSN: 1753-2000