The Pave Project Report - Queen's University Belfast

The PAVE Project Report 125
GHQ-30- A1
BDI-II– A1
PDS – A1
Figure 56: Correlations GHQ-30, BDI-II, and PDS (A1 & A3)
Pearson Correlation
N
Pearson Correlation
N
Pearson Correlation
N
GHQ- A1. BDI – A1 PDS – A1 GHQ- A3 BDI- A3 PDS – A3
1 .746** .891** - - -
20 20 20 20 20 20
.746** 1 .761** - - -
20 20 20 20 20 20
.891** .761** 1 - - -
20 20 20 20 20 20
Pearson Correlation
GHQ-30- A3
N
BDI-II– A3
Pearson Correlation
N
PDS – A3
Pearson Correlation
N
- -
20 20
- -
20 20
- -
20 20
- No significant correlation
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
-
20
-
20
-
20
1
20
.903**
20
.845**
20
.903**
20
1
20
.868**
20
.825**
20
.868**
20
1
20
Participants in assessment four (A4) also seemed to improve regarding all three
psychological measures when compared to baseline assessment (A1), although none
of the differences were statistically significant (paired-samples t-test) (Figure 57).
Figure 57: GHQ-30, BDI-II, and PDS mean scores and standard deviations (A1 &
A4)
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
GHQ-30 – A1 13 0 29 13.62 10
GHQ-30 – A4 13 0 30 6 10.01
BDI-II – A1 13 8 56 22.15 12.63
BDI-II – A4 13 0 36 13.77 11.33
PDS – A1 13 3 47 27.23 16.68
PDS – A4 13 0 34 16.38 11.2
Correlations between standardized questionnaires were not calculated in A4 due to
small numbers. Figures 58, 59, and 60 give a more detailed view of means scores in
each assessment. The first bar represents A1 mean score for all participants of each of
the subsequent assessment, while the second bar represents the mean score for the
respective effectiveness assessment (see x-axis). Variations in A1 mean scores are due