Esther Mertens

| 57 Effectiveness of a Psychophysical Intervention Table 3 Model Fit Indices and Growth Over Time of Outcomes Model fit statistics Factor loadings on slope RMSEA CFI SRMR T1 T2 T3 T4 Intrapersonal domain Psychological wellbeing .062 .907 .067 0 .19 .61 .54 Resilience .060 .796 .084 0 .19 .04 .11 Sexual autonomy 1 .053 .862 .073 0 .69 .84 .79 Internalizing behavior 1 .061 .934 .068 0 .62 .73 .79 Interpersonal domain Interpersonal relations in the class .053 .918 .069 0 .36 .59 .69 Externalizing behavior .059 .919 .070 0 .28 .17 .22 Aggression .055 .888 .069 0 .38 .59 .55 Bullying .050 .635 .068 0 .28 .47 .60 Victimization .058 .696 .069 0 .36 .63 .60 Secondary outcomes Self-control 1 .057 .936 .077 0 .66 .76 .85 Self-reflection .060 .912 .067 0 .54 .64 .59 Self-esteem .068 .925 .073 0 .09 .43 .49 Emotional self-regulation .057 .931 .075 0 .41 .64 .69 Note. 1 Variance of the baseline measurement of the concerned outcome variable was fixed to zero due to a negative residual variance of the observed variable at T1. Effects of R&W The standardized regression coefficients of the slope on the intervention conditions (compared to the Control condition) are reported per outcome in Table 4. The effect sizes between measurement points and overall effect sizes are reported per outcome for the intervention condition (compared to the Control condition) in Table 5. Intrapersonal domain. Students in the Light condition showed a more beneficial trajectory of change for psychological wellbeing, sexual autonomy, and internalizing behavior compared to students in the Control condition (see Figure 2). Effect sizes were small (Cohen’s d = .26 - .38; Cohen, 1988). In the Light condition students remained stable on psychological wellbeing (slope = .08), whereas students in the Control condition decreased (slope = -.25). The intervention effect is strongest from T2 to T3, i.e., in between the first and second year of the intervention. On sexual autonomy, students in the Light condition showed a steeper increase (slope = .73) than students in the Control condition (slope = .32). Students improved most in the first year of the intervention. For internalizing behavior, students in the Light and Standard conditions showed a steeper decline (slope Light  = -.60; slope Standard  = -.53) than students in the 3