Skip to main content

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