Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Feb 16.
Published in final edited form as: J Marriage Fam. 2008 Dec 1;70(5):1094. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00551.x

Table 2.

Fathers’ Demographics, Prenatal Involvement, and Mediators Regressed on Fathers’ Engagement with 1-Year-Olds with Lambda

Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Variables B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β
F Race a
 African American 0.56 0.87 .02 0.54 0.87 .02 0.96 0.79 .04 0.85 0.87 .03 1.15 0.79 .04
 Hispanic 3.53 1.06 .12** 3.47 1.06 .12** 0.78 1.01 .03 3.53 1.06 .12** 0.81 1.02 .03
 Other −3.11 2.73 −.03 −3.09 2.73 −.03 −0.90 2.46 −.01 −2.76 2.72 −.02 −0.66 2.46 −.01
F Education b
 < HS −0.14 0.73 −.01 −0.11 0.73 −.00 −0.71 0.66 −.03 0.14 0.73 .01 −0.48 0.66 −.02
 Some college/tech. −1.30 0.85 −.04 −1.28 0.85 −.04 −0.57 0.79 −.02 −1.60 0.85 −.05 −0.81 0.79 −.03
 College/grad school 0.18 1.70 .00 0.17 1.70 .00 0.66 1.56 .01 −0.20 1.70 −.00 0.32 1.55 .01
F Age 0.03 0.07 .02 0.03 0.07 .01 −0.09 0.06 −.05 0.04 0.07 .02 −0.08 0.06 −.04
M Age 0.09 0.08 .04 0.09 0.09 .04 0.09 0.07 .04 0.08 0.08 .04 0.08 0.07 .03
M is employed y1 −0.61 0.61 −.02 −0.63 0.61 −.02 −0.53 0.55 −.02 −0.68 0.61 −.03 −0.61 0.55 −.02
F has other child, y1 −1.23 0.67 −.05 −1.24 0.67 −.05 −0.89 0.60 −.03 −1.12 0.67 −.04 1.01 0.67 .03
Legal paternity, y1 1.82 0.74 .06* 1.78 0.74 .06* 1.09 0.67 .03 1.74 0.74 .05* 1.09 0.64 .03
Child is a boy −0.84 0.60 −.03 −0.86 0.60 −.03 −0.58 0.54 −.02 −0.86 0.59 −.03 −0.61 0.54 −.02
Child poor health (M) 0.24 0.40 .01 0.26 0.40 .02 0.21 0.36 .01 0.27 0.40 .02 0.25 0.36 .02
Child poor health (F) −2.25 0.41 −.13*** −2.22 0.41 −.13*** −1.70 0.37 −.10*** −2.30 0.41 −.14*** −1.71 0.37 −.10***
Child temperament (M) −0.03 0.10 −.01 −0.03 0.10 −.01 −0.04 0.09 −.01 −0.02 0.10 −.01 −0.02 0.09 −.01
Prenatal Involv.(M/F)c 2.27 0.41 .17*** 2.22 0.41 .17*** 1.33 0.38 .10** 2.17 0.41 .17*** 1.25 0.38 .09**
Status Salience 0.53 0.23 .06* 0.33 0.20 .03
Relationship qualityd
 Improved 1.11 1.17 .02 1.32 1.17 .03
 Declined 0.65 0.80 .02 0.72 0.80 .03
 Consistently high 1.58 0.86 .06 1.64 0.86 .06
Relationship Statuse
 R→R 11.06 0.94 .42*** 10.71 0.94 .41***
 N→R 12.79 1.00 .34*** 12.50 0.99 .33***
 R→N −0.55 1.08 −.01 −0.74 1.07 −.02
Employment transition f
 Unemp b→emp y1 4.78 1.11 .11*** 3.48 1.01 .08**
 Emp b→emp y1 2.56 0.73 .09*** 1.91 0.66 .07**
Lambda −23.52 4.34 −.24*** −22.27 4.37 −.20*** −11.75 4.61 −.10** −24.44 4.34 −.22*** −12.14 4.76 −.11*
R2 .16 .16 .32 .17 .33
F 18.20*** 17.55*** 34.11*** 17.65*** 31.10***

Note. N = 1,686. Categorical variables are coded 0 = no, 1 = yes. R = residential, N = nonresidential.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

a

Reference = non-Hispanic whites.

b

Reference = high school diploma/GED.

c

Mother and father’s view of fathers’ prenatal involvement.

d

Reference = relationship quality low, baseline and year 1.

e

Reference = nonresidential at baseline and year 1.

f

Reference = unemployed at year 1.