. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jan 1.

Published in final edited form as: Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013 Jun 11;21(7):1307–1312. doi: 10.1002/oby.20158

Table 2.

Summary of simple mediation models assessing the indirect effect of food reinforcement on the relationship between socioeconomic status and BMI.

SES Proxy	Effect of SES on BMI (Total Effect)^a	Effect of SES on FR (Path A)^a	Effect of FR on BMI (Path B)^a	SES on BMI through FR (Indirect Effect)^b	Bca 95% CI^c		Effect Ratio^d
SES Proxy	Effect of SES on BMI (Total Effect)^a	Effect of SES on FR (Path A)^a	Effect of FR on BMI (Path B)^a	SES on BMI through FR (Indirect Effect)^b	Lower	Upper	Effect Ratio^d
Income	−0.37	−46.32	0.0015	−0.068	−0.23	−0.0017	0.19
Education	−0.94	−137.07	0.0015	−0.097	−0.35	−0.0052	0.10

Standardized regression coefficients.

The magnitude of the indirect effect is estimated by the product of the regression coefficients of the predictive variables from Path A and Path B.

BCa = bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence intervals obtained from 10,000 bootstrap resamples. Confidence intervals not containing zero suggest that the indirect effect is significant at the 0.95 level.

Effect ratio = indirect effect/total effect. The effect ratio quantifies the proportion of the total effect explained by the indirect effect.