Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Logistic regression predicting participation (longitudinal)

From: Intention as an indicator for subjective need: A new pathway in need assessment

Male teachers (n = 339)
  model M1 model M2 model M3
Variables included OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Age (45+) .5 (.3 - 1.0) .5 (.3 - .9) .9 (.4 - 2.4)
Marital status (MS) .7 (.3 - 1.5) .6 (.3 - 1.4) .9 (.2 - 3.3)
Children at home (CH) .9 (.5 - 1.7) .9 (.5 - 1.7) .7 (.2 - 1.8)
MS X CH1 .2 (.1 - .9) .3 (.1 - 1.0) .3 (.0 - 2.8)
GHQ-12 (1/2)   1.2 (.6 - 2.4) 1.2 (.4 - 3.9)
(1/3)   1.6 (.8 - 3.4) 3.0 (.8 - 11.0)
MBI-EE (1/2)   1.6 (.8 - 3.2) 1.6 (.5 - 4.9)
(1/3)   1.6 (.7 - 3.5) .6 (.2 - 2.3)
Intention (t-1)    121.1 (46.1 - 318.2)
  -2LL: 344.1 -2LL: 337.9 -2LL: 156.7
  Δ CHI2: 9.7 Δ CHI2: 6.2 Δ CHI2: 181.2
  p = .05 (df = 4) p = .19 (df = 4) p < .01 (df = 1)
Nagelkerkes R2 .04 .07 .68
Hosmer-Lemeshow-Test CHI2: .9 CHI2: 3.4 CHI2:4.9
  p = .92 (df = 4) p = .91 (df = 8) p = .76 (df = 8)
Female teachers (n = 602)
Variables included OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Age (45+) .8 (.5 - 1.1) .7 (.5 - 1.0) 1.1 (.6 - 2.1)
Marital status (MS) 1.5 (.9 - 2.4) 1.3 (.8 - 2.2) 1.6 (.7 - 3.5)
Children at home (CH) 1.0 (.6 - 1.5) 1.0 (.6 - 1.6) .7 (.3 - 1.4)
MS X CH1 .9 (.4 - 2.0) .8 (.4 - 1.9) 1.0 (.3 - 3.4)-
GHQ-12 (1/2)   2.1 (1.3 - 3.4) 2.0 (1.0 - 4.2)
(1/3)   2.9 (1.7 - 4.9) 3.7 (1.6 - 8.5)
MBI-EE (1/2)   .9 (.6 - 1.5) .6 (.3 - 1.2)
(1/3)   1.8 (1.1 - 3.0) .7 (.3 - 1.5)
Intention    85.7 (46.0 - 159.6)
  -2LL: 746.9 -2LL: 700.4 -2LL: 346.8
  Δ CHI2: 9.2 Δ CHI2: 46.5 Δ CHI2: 353.6
  p = .06 (df = 4) p < .00 (df = 4) p < .00 (df = 1)
Nagelkerkes R2 .02 .13 .70
Hosmer-Lemeshow-Test CHI2: 1.3 CHI2: 2.3 CHI2: 12.1
  p = .94 (df = 5) p = .97 (df = 8) p = .15 (df = 8)
  1. 1 MS X CH: Interaction effect of marital status and children at home