Table 1

Mean and Standard Deviation of Age (N=50)

Variable M SD

Age 20.78 1.61

Note. M=Mean, SD= Standard Deviation

The above table showed that the average age of the participants is 21.

Table 2

Frequencies and Percentages of the Demographic Variables of Participants (N=50)

Variable f %

Gender

Men 25 50

Women 25 50

Family System

Joint 17 34

Nuclear 33 66

University

Private 32 64

Government 18 36

Note. f=Frequency, %=Percentage

The above table shows that equal number of men and women participated in the study.

However, more participants belonged from nuclear family (66%) than from joint family

(34%). While participation from private university (64%) was more than that from the

government university (36%).

Table 3

Normality of Data (N=50)

5% Trimmed
Variable Median M Skewness Kurtosis
Mean

FCS Total 37.50 36.54 36.99 -.77 .19

RSES Total 27 27.16 27.26 -.27 -.09

DASS Total 47 47.10 46.93 .25 -.48

Note. M=Mean

The above table showed that data for FCS, RSES and DASS is normally distributed.

Table 4

Cross Tabulation of Demographic Variables (N=404)

Frequencies and Percentages of the Demographic Variables of the Participants (N=404)

Men Women Total

Variables
f (%) f (%) f (%)

Gender 25 (50) 25 (50) 50 (100)

Family System

Joint 10 (40) 7 (28) 17 (34)

Nuclear 15 (60) 18 (72) 33 (64)

University

Private 16 (64) 16 (64) 32 (64)

Government 9 (36) 9 (36) 18 (36)

Note. f=Frequencies, %=Percentage

The above table displayed that from 8th class, there were more girl participants than boy

participants did. While participation of both boys and girls was equal from the 9th class.

Whereas more boys participated from the 10th class. It can also be deduced from the table that
from 8th class there were more participants from private school than from the government

school, whereas the participation from 9th and 10th class was equal

Table 6

Prevalence of Emotional Behavioral Problems in Adolescents (N=404)

Variable f %

EBP

Normal 69 17.1

Mild 254 62.9

Moderate 64 15.8

Severe 14 3.5

Note. EBP= Emotional Behavioral Problems, f=Frequency, %=Percentage

The above table presented that mild Emotional Behavioral Problems are most prevalent in

adolescents as more scores fell under the mild range.

Table 7

Alpha coefficient of Pyramid Tendency Scales

Guttmann’s Split
Scales No of Items α
Half

Family Cohesion 51 .83 .78

Total

Note. α= Cronbach Alpha

The table shows that the family cohesion scale has good internal consistency as well as

Guttmann split half reliability.

The table shows that the internal consistency of each factor. The inter-personal mistrust has

the highest Cronbach Alpha (.83) among other scales of poor self-image (.89) and social

image (.80). Whereas the overall paranoid tendencies scale has good internal consistency.
Table 8

Correlation of Family Cohesion, Interpersonal Difficulties, Self Esteem and Emotional

Behavioral Problems (N=404)

Variables M SD FCS SE ID EBP

FCS - .18** -.38** -.42**

SE - - .05 -.06

ID 40.61 19.94 - - - .64**

EBP 97.48 39.28 - - - -

Note. M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation, FCS=Family Cohesion, SE=Self Esteem,

ID=Interpersonal Difficulties, EBP=Emotional Behavioral Problems, >0.01=**

The table showed that family cohesion has a significantly low positive relation with self-

esteem, while a significantly weak negative relation with Inter personal difficulties and

emotional behavioral problems. Whereas there is a significantly satisfactory positive

relationship between interpersonal difficulties and emotional behavioral problems. Moreover,

self-esteem has a weak positive relationship with interpersonal difficulties and emotional

behavioral problems.

Table 9

Correlation of Interpersonal Difficulties and Emotional Behavioral Problems (N=404)

Variables M SD ID EBP

ID 40.61 19.94 - .64**

EBP 97.48 39.28 - -

Note. M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation, ID=Interpersonal Difficulties, EBP=Emotional

Behavioral Problems, >0.01=**

The table presented that there is a significant satisfactory positive relation between Emotional

behavioral Problems and Interpersonal Difficulties. From the positive significant correlation,

it could be inferred that scales for EBP and ID are concurrently valid.

Table 10

Non-parametric Correlation of Family Cohesion, Interpersonal Difficulties, Self Esteem and

Emotional Behavioral Problems (N=404)

Variables FCS SE ID EBP

FCS - .21** -.43** -.42**

SE - - -.06 -.08

ID - - - .65**

EBP - - - -

Note. M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation, FCS=Family Cohesion, SE=Self Esteem,

ID=Interpersonal Difficulties, EBP=Emotional Behavioral Problems, >0.01=**

Table 11

Association between Gender and Relationship with Friends

OR

Chi-square Analysis for Gender and Relationship with Friends

Gender Relationship with Friends x

2
df p

Non Very much

Satisfactory
Satisfactory satisfactory
4.77 2 .09
Boys 3 77 121

Girls 1 60 142

Chi square conducted a study that looked at whether there is a link between gender and

relationship with friends. Finding indicated that the relationship between gender and friends

was non-significant, x2 (2) = 4.78, p=.09.

Table 12

Independent sample t-test comparing EBP in Men and Women

Men Women
Cohen’ 95%CI
Variable (n=) (n=) t(404) p
sd
M SD M SD LL UL

EBP 90.6 38 104.5 39.4 -3.60 0.00 0.35 -21.50 -6.30

Note. p*>0.05, M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation, EBP=Emotional Behavioral Problems, n=

no. of participants, CI= Confidence Interval, LL= Lower Limit, UL= Upper Limit

The above table showed a significant gender differences in Emotional Behavioral Problem.

However, girls have more Emotional Behavioral Problems (104.5) than boys (90.6).