Table 3.
Logistic Regression of Extended Living Among Asian and Hispanic Elders on Origin Group, Demographic Characteristics, Resources, and Assimilation,a 2000
| Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Model 4 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Origin | 1 + Demographic |
2 + Resources |
3 + Assimilation |
|
| Ethnic group | ||||
| Native-born Whites (referent) |
— | — | — | — |
| Chinese | 4.71*** | 5.68*** | 5.15*** | 1.72*** |
| Japanese | 1.95*** | 2.02*** | 2.10*** | 1.48*** |
| Filipinos | 7.41*** | 8.89*** | 8.59*** | 3.34*** |
| Koreans | 3.36*** | 3.96*** | 3.52*** | 1.14* |
| Indians | 8.44*** | 11.70*** | 11.00*** | 4.28*** |
| Vietnamese | 8.77*** | 11.07*** | 8.33*** | 2.31*** |
| Mexicans | 4.22*** | 4.66*** | 3.58*** | 2.05*** |
| Cubans | 3.59*** | 3.74*** | 3.25*** | 1.20*** |
| Dominicans | 6.62*** | 6.89*** | 5.08*** | 1.73*** |
| Colombians | 4.96*** | 5.23*** | 4.46*** | 1.62*** |
| Puerto Ricans | 2.69*** | 2.63*** | 2.06*** | 1.08*** |
| Demographic characteristics |
||||
| Female | — | 1.22*** | 1.13*** | 1.14*** |
| Age | — | 1.02*** | 1.11*** | 1.07*** |
| Age squared | — | 1.03*** | 0.99*** | 0.99*** |
| Married (referent) |
— | — | — | — |
| Divorced/ separated |
2.09*** | 2.01*** | 2.05*** | |
| Widowed | 2.55*** | 2.47*** | 2.46*** | |
| Never married | — | 3.26*** | 3.37*** | 3.30*** |
| Social and economic resources |
||||
| Less than high school degree (referent) |
— | — | — | — |
| High school degree or some college |
— | — | 0.80*** | 0.82*** |
| College degree or higher |
— | — | 0.57*** | 0.58*** |
| No Social Security income |
— | — | 1.02** | 0.96*** |
| Log of total income |
— | — | 0.94*** | 0.94*** |
| Number disabilities (0-6) |
1.17*** | 1.17*** | ||
| Assimilation | — | — | ||
| Speaks English poorly/not at all (referent) |
— | — | — | — |
| Speaks English well or very well |
— | — | — | 0.82*** |
| Speaks English only |
— | — | — | 0.68*** |
| Native born (referent) |
— | — | — | — |
| Immigrated aged 0 to 15 |
0.96 | |||
| Immigrated aged 16 to 29 |
1.06* | |||
| Immigrated aged 30 to 44 |
1.32*** | |||
| Immigrated aged 45 to 59 |
2.39*** | |||
| Immigrated aged 60 plus |
4.37*** | |||
| Gateway metro area (referent) |
— | — | — | — |
| Mini-gateway metro area |
— | — | — | 0.89*** |
| Dispersed area | — | — | — | 0.71*** |
| Log likelihood | −751,489*** | −714,104*** | −706,367*** | −700,243*** |
| Pseudo R2 | .04 | .08 | .10 | .11 |
| N | 1,957,049 | 1,957,049 | 1,957,049 | 1,957,049 |
| Likelihood ratio testb |
5,147*** | 51,214*** | 22,870*** | 10,808*** |
Both native- and foreign-born Asians and Hispanics are included in the estimated models. For Puerto Ricans, the foreign born are persons born in Puerto Rico. The reference group for the ethnic categories is native Whites.
The likelihood ratio test calculates the relative importance of the set of covariates introduced in each model against the full model (Model 4) based on a reestimation of the full model that excluded the covariate set added in each column and contrasted the log likelihood for the reestimated model with that of the full model. The likelihood ratio test statistics are given at the bottom of each column and represent the tests, sequentially, of origin, demographic characteristics, resources, and assimilation.
p < .05.
p < .01.
p < .001.