Table 3 Logistic regression with diagnosis as outcome and standardised cognitive variables as predictors.
| Variable | B | Wald test | df | p Value | OR | 95% CI for OR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||||
| Naming objects and fingers | −0.082 | 0.87 | 1 | <0.349 | 0.921 | 0.775 | 1.094 |
| Commands | 0.422 | 18.99 | 1 | <0.000 | 1.525 | 1.261 | 1.844 |
| Constructional praxis | 0.377 | 18.51 | 1 | <0.000 | 1.458 | 1.228 | 1.731 |
| Ideational praxis | 0.483 | 23.95 | 1 | <0.000 | 1.621 | 1.336 | 1.967 |
| Orientation | −0.806 | 62.84 | 1 | <0.000 | 0.446 | 0.366 | 0.545 |
| Word recall | −0.560 | 3.30 | 1 | <0.000 | 0.571 | 0.468 | 0.697 |
| Word recognition | −0.062 | 0.48 | 1 | <0.485 | 0.939 | 0.788 | 1.119 |
| Attention and calculation | 0.675 | 57.20 | 1 | <0.000 | 1.963 | 1.648 | 2.338 |
| Constant | −0.038 | 0.24 | 1 | <0.620 | 0.962 | ||
Only “naming objects and fingers” and “word recognition” were non‐significant predictors of diagnostic category. “Orientation” was the strongest predictor, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.45, indicating a substantial reduction in the likelihood of being in the PDD group, as a consequence of a 1 point increase in Z score for the “orientation” variable. “Attention and calculation” was the second strongest predictor, with an OR of 1.96, indicating a relatively large increase in the likelihood of being in the PDD group with a 1 point increase in Z score for the “attention and calculation variable”.