Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Interpers Violence. 2020 Oct 27;37(9-10):NP7202–NP7224. doi: 10.1177/0886260520969390

Table 2.

The Effects of Violent Victimization, Parental Support, and Friends’ Support on Hypertension.

Main Effectsa Coefficient 95% CI
Violent victimization (Waves 1–4) .45** .20 .70
Friends’ support (Waves 1–4) −.11 −.31 .09
Parental support (Waves 1–4) .11 −.10 .32
Male −.20 −.53 .13
Age at Wave 1 .02 −.22 .27
SES at Wave 1 −.01 −.03 .01
Heavy substance use (Waves 5–8) −.03 −.11 .05
Depression and anxiety (Waves 5–8) −.04 −.37 .29
Chronic medical conditions at Wave 5 .18 −.22 .57
Interaction Effectsb
Violent victimization × Friends’ support −.49* −.95 −.02
Violent victimization × Parent support .39 −.08 .87
Embedded Selection Modelc,d Coefficient 95% CI
Perceived stress (Waves 2–4) .03 −.16 .21
Depression (Waves 1–4) .23 −.02 .42
Future orientation (Waves 1–4) .33* .13 .53
Male −.28* −.50 −.07
Age at Wave 1 −.10 −.27 .07
SES at Wave 1 .00 −.01 .01
Rho .35 −.79 .96
*

p < .05,

**

p < .01.

a

Model 1: Main effects only (n = 312, Log likelihood = −516.24). The coefficients represent main effects when interaction term was not included in the model.

b

Model 2: Included interaction effect between violent victimization and friends support and interaction effects between violence victimization and parental support (n = 312, Log likelihood = −512.61).

c

Embedded probit model of selection within Model 2.

d

The probit model with sample selection assumes that the underlying probit models for both the selection equation and the equation of substantive interest are well-specified and that there is at least one variable (or instrument) that appears with a non-zero coefficient in the selection equation but does not appear in the equation of substantive interest. We believe that these assumptions are reasonable for our current application, based on assessments of the goodness-of-fit of the substantive probit model and the presence of future orientation as a significant predictor in the selection equation but not the substantive equation. We also assessed the robustness of our results to potential violations of these assumptions by using the vce(robust) option in Stata for the heckprob model fitting command, and we arrived at the same substantive conclusions.