Table 3 Logistic regression predicting intention (cross-sectional)
From: Intention as an indicator for subjective need: A new pathway in need assessment
Male teachers (n = 339) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Â | model M1 | model M2 | model M3 |
Variables included | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) |
Age (45+) | .5 (.3 -.8) | .5 (.3 -.8) | .4 (.2 -.7) |
Marital status (MS) | .9 (.5 - 1.7) | .6 (.3 - 1.3) | . 6 (.3 - 1.3) |
Children at home (CH) | 1.3 (.8 - 2.3) | 1.00 (.6 - 1.8) | 1.0 (.6 - 1.9) |
MS X CH1 | Â | .3 (.1-1.0) | .3 (.1 - 1.1) |
GHQ-12 (1/2) | Â | Â | 1.2 (.6 - 2.3) |
(1/3) | Â | Â | 1.1 (.5 - 2.3) |
MBI-EE (1/2) | Â | Â | 1.4 (.7 - 2.7) |
(1/3) | Â | Â | 2.2 (1.0 - 4.7) |
| Â | -2LL: 371.7 | -2LL: 367.9 | -2LL: 361.0 |
|  | Δ CHI2: 9.0 | Δ CHI2: 3.9 | Δ CHI2: 6.9 |
| Â | p = .03 (df = 3) | p = .05 (df = 1) | p = .14 (df = 4) |
Nagelkerkes R2 | .04 | .06 | .09 |
Hosmer-Lemeshow-Test | CHI2: 4.2 | CHI2: .1 | CHI2: 13.5 |
| Â | p = .52 (df = 5) | p = .99 (df = 4) | p = .09 (df = 8) |
Female teachers (n = 602) | |||
Variables included | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) |
Age (45+) | .7 (.5 - .9) | .7 (.5 - .9) | .6 (.4 - .8) |
Marital status (MS) | 1.4 (1.0 - 2.1) | 1.4 (.6 - 2.2) | 1.2 (.7 - 1.9) |
Children at home (CH) | 1.6 (.9 - 1.8) | 1.2 (.8 - 1.9) | 1.2 (.8 - 2.0) |
MS X CH1 | Â | .9 (.4 - 1.9) | .8 (.4 - 1.7) |
GHQ-12 (1/2) | Â | Â | 1.8 (1.1 - 2.8) |
(1/3) | Â | Â | 2.0 (1.2 - 3.3) |
MBI-EE (1/2) | Â | Â | 1.3 (.8 - 2.0) |
(1/3) | Â | Â | 2.6 (1.5 - 4.3) |
| Â | -2LL: 764.3 | -2LL: 764.2 | -2LL: 720.17 |
|  | Δ CHI2: 12.1 | Δ CHI2: .1 | Δ CHI2: 44.0 |
| Â | p = .01 (df = 3) | p = .72 (df = 1) | p < .00 (df = 4) |
Nagelkerkes R2 | .03 | .03 | .12 |
Hosmer-Lemeshow-Test | CHI2: 2.4 | CHI2: 2.1 | CHI2: 5.2 |
| Â | p = .67 (df = 4) | p = .83(df = 5) | p = .74 (df = 8) |