Connections between the school environment and emotional problems among boys and girls in upper secondary school

Figures & data

Table 1. An overview of the characteristics of the respondents.

	Percentage
Gender
Boys	50
Girls	50
Mother′s education level
Mother low education	37
Mother middle education	29
Mother high education	34
Education Program
General studies program	52
Vocational education program	48
	Mean values
Average grade (scale 1-6)	4.0
Support from parents (scale 1-6)	5.1
Support from peers (scale 1-6)	4.8
Support from teachers (scale 1-6)	4.3

Figure 1. Distribution of dependent variable SDQ emotional problems in Sør-Trøndelag county, upper secondary school level II (USSII), 2017, n = 2057.

Table 2. Comparison of the share of adolescents with normal/abnormal score on emotional problems in Sør-Trøndelag USSII compared with Akershus and British norms.

	British norms	Akershus USS		Sør-Trøndelag USSII
	1995	2000		2017
	All	Boys	Girls	Boys	Girls
Normal/Borderline 0-6	95	96	89	96	76
Abnormal (7-10)	5	4	11	4	24

Table 3. Correlation matrix using a mix of different coefficients: Pearson’s r (two variables on interval/ratio scale), point biserial correlation (dichotomous variable and interval/ratio scale variable) and phi (two dichotomous variables).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Emotional problems	1
2. Girl	.40**	1
3. Mother middle education	−.01	−.01	1
4. Mother high education	−.02	.03	−.46**	1
5. Average grade	−.01	.11**	.01	.21**	1
6. Vocational education program	.03	−.10**	.01	−.28**	−.33**	1
7. Support from peers	−.32**	−.01	.01	.06*	.17**	−.12**	1
8. Support from parents	−.28**	.05*	.04	.04	.12**	−.08**	.48**	1
9. Support from teachers	−.29**	−.04	.01	−.02	.13**	.07**	.48**	.42**	1

p-value: **=significant at 0.01, *=significant at 0.05.

Table 4. Results from multilevel modeling analyses predicting participating adolescents’ emotional problems, interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), estimates of fixed effects, standard errors (in parentheses), and p-values (**=significant at 0.01, *=significant at 0.05).

Parameter estimates	Model I	Model II	Model III
ICC % student	88	94	96
ICC % school class	9	4	3
ICC % school	3	2	1
Intercept		3.32** (.40)	7.90** (.40)
Girl		1.97** (.11)	2.00** (.10)
Mother middle education		−0.17 (.13)	−0.06 (.13)
Mother high education		−0.28* (.13)	−0.14 (.13)
Average grade		−0.20 (.07)	0.04 (.06)
Vocational education program			0.27* (.13)
Support from peers			−0.53** (.07)
Support from parents			−0.36** (.06)
Support from teachers			−0.32** (0.06)
Pseudo R^2	0.12	0.20	0.32

Reference categories: Boy; mother low education, general studies program.

Table 5. Results from multilevel modeling analyses predicting emotional problems among boys and girls, interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), estimates of fixed effects, standard errors (in parentheses), and p-values (**=significant at 0.01, *=significant at 0.05).

Parameter estimates	Model IV (Girl)	Model V (Boy)
ICC % student	96	97
ICC % school class	3	1
ICC % school	1	2
Intercept	11.06** (0.63)	6.75** (0.48)
Mother middle education	−0.29 (0.19)	0.19 (0.16)
Mother high education	−0.16 (0.19)	0.12 (0.16)
Average grade	0.10 (0.10)	0.01 (0.08)
Vocational education program	0.45* (0.19)	0.02 (0.14)
Support from peers	−0.60** (0.09)	−0.46** (0.09)
Support from parents	−0.45** (0.08)	−0.27** (0.07)
Support from teachers	−0.43** (0.09)	−0.20** (0.08)
Pseudo R^2	0.24	0.17

Reference categories: Mother low education, general studies program.