Table 2.
Logistic and Probit Regressions Predicting Sexual Activity
| Sexual Activity (n=984) | Sexual Debut (n=897) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logistic Regression Odds Ratio | Logistic Regression Odds Ratio | |||
| Final Model | Post Hocs | Final Model | Post Hocs | |
| Adolescent Demographics | ||||
| Age (older omitted) | .23*** | .26*** | ||
| Female (males omitted) | .47*** | .50*** | ||
| City (Chicago omitted)A | ||||
| BostonB | 1.08 | 1.14 | ||
| San AntonioC | 1.70* | C>B* | 1.90* | C>B* |
| Race | ||||
| African American (omitted)A | ||||
| WhiteB | .37** | .46* | ||
| HispanicC | .61** | C>B* | .72 | |
| Familial Demographics | ||||
| Family Structure | ||||
| Stable Single (omitted)A | ||||
| Stable Two-ParentB | 2.45** | B>E** | 2.15* | B>E* |
| Stable SeparatedC | 2.05** | C>E** | 2.04** | C>E* |
| Into UnionD | 1.72* | 1.40 | ||
| Out of UnionE | .49 | D>E* | .41 | |
| Maternal Education | ||||
| Less than High School (omitted)A | ||||
| High School/GEDB | 1.02 | B>C* | 1.09 | |
| Tech or HigherC | .40* | .31* | B>C** | |
| Increased EducationD | .64 | .39* | B>D* | |
| Welfare Status | ||||
| Stable on WelfareA | 1.32 | 1.30 | ||
| Trans on WelfareB | 2.33* | 1.57 | ||
| Trans off WelfareC | 1.45 | 2.13 | ||
| Stable off Welfare(omitted)D | ||||
| Income | 0.99 | 1.00 | ||
| Family Processes | ||||
| Family Routines | .91 | .87 | ||
| Father Involvement | .77* | .84 | ||
| Mother-Child Relationship | 1.11 | .98 | ||
| Parental Monitoring | .33 | .54 | ||
| Father-Child Trust & Communication | .96 | 1.02 | ||
| Father Child Anger & Alienation | 1.05 | 1.11 | ||
| Individual Attributes | ||||
| Academic Achievement | .85 | .83 | ||
| Academic Aspirations | 1.08 | 1.13 | ||
| Delinquency | 4.88*** | 2.20* | ||
| LR Chi-Square | 228.92*** | 125.91*** | ||
| Pseudo R2 | .20 | .15 | ||
Notes: p < .001;
p < .01;
p < .05.