3.1 Demographic Characteristics of Female College Students
A total of 50 female college students were included in the statistical analysis, with 22 in the experimental group and 28 in the control group. The basic characteristics can be found in Table 1. It is considered that the pre test conditions of the experimental and control groups are balanced.
Table 1 Comparison of Basic Characteristics between the Experimental and Control Groups(`x±SD)
Subjects
|
Experimental group(n=22)
|
Control group(n=28)
|
t
|
P
|
Age (years)
|
19.45±0.80
|
19.25±0.65
|
1
|
0.32
|
Height (cm)
|
163.63±4.74
|
162.83±7.33
|
0.44
|
0.66
|
Body weight(kg)
|
57.94±8.52
|
60.01±12.30
|
-0.67
|
0.51
|
3.2 Effects of Comprehensive Physical Activities on the Health Fitness of Female College Students
Independent sample t-tests for the pretest measures of BMI, simple reaction time, hand grip strength, vertical jump, sit-and-reach, and vital capacity showed no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups (P>0.05). A 2×2 repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare the changes in each indicator over time between the two groups, and the results are presented in Table 2.The interaction effect of group and time had a statistically significant impact on the vertical jump (P<0.01). Simple effect analysis for the factors of group and time revealed that the experimental group increased by 4.2 cm posttest compared to pretest, which was statistically significant (P<0.01), while the control group increased by 1.29 cm, which was also statistically significant (P=0.04).The posttest of the experimental group was 4.85 cm greater than that of the control group, showing a statistically significant difference (P<0.01).Similarly, the interaction effect of group and time was statistically significant for the sit-and-reach (P<0.01). The experimental group showed a 2 cm increase posttest compared to pretest, which was statistically significant (P<0.01), whereas the control group decreased by 2.24 cm, also statistically significant (P<0.01). The Posttest of the experimental group was 4.84 cm greater than that of the control group, indicating a statistically significant difference (P<0.01).The interaction effect of group and time was also statistically significant for vital capacity (P=0.02). The experimental group's Posttest showed an increase of 150.09 ml compared to the pretest, which was statistically significant (P<0.01), while the control group's Posttest showed a decrease of 17.11 ml, which was not statistically significant (P=0.71). The Posttest of the experimental group was 367.28 ml greater than that of the control group, a difference that was statistically significant (P=0.01).
Table 2 Comparison of Changes in Health-Related Physical Fitness Between the Two Groups of Female College Students Before and After the Experiment(`x±SD)
|
Experimental group(n=22)
|
Control group(n=28)
|
Time F value (η2)
|
Time × group F value (η2)
|
Pretest
|
Posttest
|
Pretest
|
Posttest
|
BMI
|
21.63±2.73
|
21.31±2.49
|
22.43±3.27
|
22.13±3.52
|
9.27(0.16)**
|
0.01(<0.01)
|
Simple reaction time(s)
|
0.54±0.07
|
0.52±0.08
|
0.57±0.05
|
0.55±0.05
|
10.84(0.18)**
|
0.09(<0.01)
|
Grip strength (kg)
|
28.04±5.04
|
30.44±6.69
|
26.87±4.45
|
28.42±5.05
|
19.96(0.29)**
|
0.92(0.02)
|
Vertical jump (cm)
|
23.79±3.89
|
27.99±5.31
|
21.85±3.29
|
23.14±3.19
|
37.05(0.44)**
|
10.42(0.18)**
|
Sitting body flexion (cm)
|
17.53±5.95
|
19.52±6.34
|
16.93±5.47
|
14.68±5.77
|
0.08(<0.01)
|
22.73(0.32)**
|
Vital capacity (ml)
|
2920.05±488.14
|
3070.14±448.74
|
2719.96±623.47
|
2702.86±545.57
|
3.69(0.07)
|
5.83(0.11)*
|
Note:*P<0.05,** P<0.01
3.3 Impact of Comprehensive Physical Activities on the Resilient Personality of Female College Students
The independent sample t-tests for the total score of resilient personality and its four dimensions—tenacity, engagement, control, and challenge—between the experimental and control groups at pretest showed no statistically significant differences (P>0.05). A 2×2 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the changes in scores over time for each group, with the results presented in Table 3.The interaction effect of group and time was statistically significant for the total score of resilient personality (P=0.03). Simple main effects analysis for the factors of group and time indicated that the experimental group had a significant increase in scores from pretest to Posttest (P=0.03), while the control group experienced a non-significant decrease in scores (P=0.46). However, the increase in scores from Posttest in the experimental group compared to the control group was not statistically significant (P=0.11).Similarly, the interaction effect of group and time was statistically significant for the engagement dimension (P=0.01). The experimental group showed a significant increase in scores from pretest to Posttest (P<0.01), whereas the control group showed a non-significant decrease (P=0.43). The increase in scores from Posttest in the experimental group compared to the control group was not statistically significant (P=0.06).The interaction effect of group and time was also statistically significant for the challenge dimension (P=0.01). The experimental group had a significant increase in scores from pretest to Posttest (P=0.02), and the control group had a significant decrease (P=0.02). However, the increase in scores from Posttest in the experimental group compared to the control group was not statistically significant (P=0.07).
Table 3 Comparison of Resilience Personality Changes in Two Groups of Female College Students Before and After the Experiment(`x±SD)
|
Experimental group(n=22)
|
Control group(n=28)
|
Time F value (η2)
|
Time × group F value (η2)
|
Pretest
|
Posttest
|
Pretest
|
Posttest
|
Total score
|
69.00±8.66
|
74.18±10.24
|
69.82±12.82
|
68.29±14.05
|
1.41(0.03)
|
4.77(0.09)*
|
Toughness
|
15.50±2.72
|
16.18±2.52
|
15.50±2.78
|
15.43±3.38
|
0.60(0.01)
|
0.91(0.02)
|
Concentrate
|
15.05±1.76
|
16.64±2.34
|
15.36±3.03
|
15.00±3.45
|
3.29(0.06)
|
8.20(0.15)*
|
Control
|
21.09±3.75
|
22.31±3.40
|
20.68±4.11
|
20.54±4.44
|
0.77(0.02)
|
1.22(0.03)
|
Challenges
|
17.36±1.99
|
19.05±2.87
|
18.29±3.67
|
17.32±3.54
|
0.64(0.01)
|
8.67(0.15)**
|
Note:*P<0.05,** P<0.01
3.4 The influence of comprehensive physical activities on female College students' dependence on mobile phone
Independent sample t-tests for the pretest measures of mobile phone usage time (days), monthly phone bill costs, and the total score and four dimensions (compulsivity, withdrawal, avoidance, and inefficiency) of the Mobile Phone Dependence Index (MPAI) between the experimental and control groups showed no statistically significant differences (P>0.05). A 2×2 repeated measures ANOVA was employed to evaluate the changes in scores over time for each group, with the results presented in Table 4.The interaction effect of group and time was statistically significant for the impact on monthly phone bill costs (P=0.03). Simple main effects analysis for the factors of time and group indicated that while the experimental group showed a non-significant decrease of 1.64 yuan from pretest to Posttest (P=0.69), the control group exhibited a significant increase of 10.89 yuan (P<0.01). However, the difference in the change in phone bill costs between the Posttest experimental and control groups was not statistically significant (P=0.10).Similarly, the interaction effect of group and time was statistically significant for the dimension of compulsivity in mobile phone use (P=0.02). The simple main effects analysis revealed that the experimental group had a non-significant reduction in scores from pretest to Posttest (P=0.67), whereas the control group's scores remained unchanged. Nonetheless, the Posttest scores of the experimental group were significantly lower than those of the control group (P=0.04), indicating a potential positive impact of the intervention on reducing compulsive phone use behaviors.
Table 4 Comparison of Changes in Mobile Phone Dependency Indicators Between Two Groups of College Students Before and After the Experiment(`x±SD)
|
Experimental group(n=22)
|
Control group(n=28)
|
Time F value (η2)
|
Time × group F value (η2)
|
Pretest
|
Posttest
|
Pretest
|
Posttest
|
Use time
|
6.1±2.3
|
6.4±2.0
|
7.1±2.8
|
6.4±2.9
|
0.57(0.01)
|
2.88(0.06)
|
Telephone charges
|
38.8±11.60
|
37.1±10.1
|
40.50±27.3
|
51.4±38.25
|
2.88(0.06)
|
5.28(0.10)*
|
MPAI Total score
|
40.4±10.0
|
36.05±9.2
|
40.9±10.5
|
40.0±9.8
|
4.74(0.09)*
|
1.98(0.04)
|
Out of control
|
15.5±0.7
|
13.4±0.8
|
15.8±0.7
|
15.8±0.7
|
5.48(0.10)*
|
5.48(0.10)*
|
Abstinence
|
9.3±3.9
|
8.4±3.2
|
8.9±3.7
|
8.3±3.5
|
2.42(0.05)
|
0.10(<0.01)
|
Escape
|
8.3±3.0
|
7.4±2.7
|
8.4±3.1
|
8.0±3.0
|
2.09(0.04)
|
0.36(0.01)
|
Low efficiency
|
7.3±2.3
|
6.9±2.0
|
7.9±2.4
|
7.9±2.5
|
0.52(0.01)
|
0.71(0.02)
|
Note:*P<0.05