Patterns of Sexting by Youths: A Latent Class Analysis

Figures & data

Table 1. Background characteristics of the participants (N = 487)

Characteristic	N = 487^1
Sex
Male	215 (44%)
Female	272 (56%)
Age	16.82 (1.17)
Religiosity
Secular	222 (46%)
Religious	146 (30%)
Traditional	118 (24%)
Unknown	1
Partner
Yes	109 (22%)
No	378 (78%)
^1n (%); Mean (SD)

Figure 1. Plot of information criterion values: sexting behavior – latent class analysis models.

A graph that displays the quantity of profiles within the dataset.

Table 2. Fit statistics and classification coefficients: sexting behavior

	1 class	2 classes	3 classes	4 classes	5 classes
BIC	1238.35	1095.12	1110.66	1138.56	1169.51
SABIC	1225.65	1066.55	1066.22	1078.26	1093.33
CAIC	1228.86	1073.78	1077.46	1093.51	1112.59
AWE	1230.86	1078.28	1084.46	1103.01	1124.59
VLMR-LRT		168.717 (<.001)	14.91 (.009)	2.94 (.23)	0.00 (.93)
BLRT		174.169 (<.0001)	15.400 (.009)	3.04 (.67)	0.00 (1.00)
BF		1288.71	0.46	0.25	0.21
cmP	0.00	0.63	0.29	0.07	0.02
Entropy	1.00	0.89	0.99	0.76	0.72
LL	−606.796	−519.712	−512.012	−510.494	−510.494
% smallest n		0.12	0.02	0.03	0.02

Note. BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; SABIC = Sample-size adjusted BIC; CAIC = Consistent Akaike Information Criterion; AWE = Approximate Weight of Evidence Criterion; BLRT = bootstrapped likelihood ratio test; VLMR-LRT = Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test; p = p-value; BF = Bayes Factor; cmP = correct model probability; LL = log-likelihood. Bolded values indicate the “best” fit for each respective statistic. Entropy is included in the table for brevity but should not be used as a model selection statistic (Masyn, 2013).

Figure 2. Scores plot: sexting behavior—2-class model. Note. class prevalence is in parentheses.

A bar chart showing the number of people who use sexting behaviors.

Table 3. Classification probabilities: sexting behavior – 2-class solution

	1	2
1	0.95	0.05
2	0.02	0.98

Note. Values indicate probabilities of most likely class membership (column) by latent class modal assignment (row). Bolded values indicate average posterior probabilities (AvePP).

Table 4. Intercepts and residuals standard errors of distal outcomes as a function of class

	None-sexters		Sexters
	Intercept	SE	Intercept	SE
Sexting norms of friends	1.80	0.67	2.67	0.67
Sexting norms of parents	2.83	0.62	2.54	0.63
Guided parental mediation	1.10	0.31	1.02	0.31
Non-intervening parental mediation	2.10	0.32	2.04	0.31
Human restricting parental mediation	16.73	12.12	12.73	13.10
Technological restricting parental mediation	1.73	0.28	1.73	0.28
Family cohesion	4.47	0.67	3.91	0.68
Peer cohesion	4.46	0.68	4.08	0.71

Note. Covariates were age, sex, religiosity, and having a partner (yes, no).