Table III.

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of CES-D Scores Predicted by SF-36 Scores and Each Moderating Variable (N = 140)

Variable	B	SE B	β	R2	F	Rdiff2	Fcomp
Sex moderator
Model 1				0.19	10.67***
SF-36 scores	4.11	0.10	0.11
Sex (male = 1; female = 2)	10.09	4.45	0.69
2-way interaction	−0.12	0.06	−0.84
Model 2				0.16	13.41***
SF-36 scores	−0.15	0.03	−0.40
Sex	0.95	1.13	0.07
Comparison of Model 1 and Model 2						−0.03	4.51*
Education moderator
Model 1				0.20	11.18***
SF-36 scores	−0.30	0.07	−0.78
Education	−6.42	2.58	−0.75
2-way interaction	7.83	0.03	0.82
Model 2				0.17	13.77***
SF-36 scores	−0.15	0.03	−0.39
Education	−0.76	0.67	−0.09
Comparison of Model 1 and Model 2						−0.03	5.17*
Marital status moderatora
Model 1				0.30	11.45***
SF-36 scores	−0.25	0.05	−0.66
Never married	−26.25	7.34	−1.18
Married	−14.81	4.58	−0.98
Never married × SF-36 Scores	0.28	0.10	0.98
Married × SF-36 Scores	0.14	0.06	0.75
Model 2				0.25	14.99***
SF-36 scores	−0.14	0.03	−0.36
Never married	−5.91	1.91	−0.27
Married	−4.93	1.31	−0.33
Comparison of Model 1 and Model 2						−0.05	4.86**
Social support moderator
Model 1				0.20	11.58***
SF-36 scores	6.63	0.11	0.18
Social support (low = 1; high = 2)	7.06	4.58	0.47
2-way Interaction term	−0.13	0.06	−0.88
Model 2				0.18	14.87***
SF-36 scores	−0.14	0.03	−0.38
Social support	−2.10	1.18	−0.14
Comparison of Model 1 and Model 2						−0.02	4.28*

Note. HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; SF-36 = SF-36 Health Survey and CES-D = Center for Epidemiological Studies—Depression Scale.

^aMarital Statuses were dummy coded (0 or 1), using disrupted marital status as the comparison group.

^*p < .05,

^**p < .01,

^***p < .001.