Table 3.

Logistic regression analyses showing the association between emotional wellbeing and underachievement reported by tutors and reported by pupils.

	Adjusted for background variables#			Additionally adjusted for neurocognitive functioning$			Additionally adjusted for other confounders*
	OR	95% CI	p	OR	95% CI	p	OR	95% CI	p
RISK OF UNDERACHIEVEMENT (REPORTED BY TUTORS) COMPARED TO HIGH ACHIEVERSa
Emotional wellbeing	4.45	(2.70–7.31)	<0.001	2.00	(1.14–3.52)	0.016	1.79	(1.00–3.20)	0.048
RISK OF UNDERACHIEVEMENT (REPORTED BY PUPILS) COMPARED TO HIGH ACHIEVERSa
Emotional wellbeing	5.69	(3.31–9.78)	<0.001	1.98	(1.09–3.62)	0.026	1.71	(0.92–3.16)	0.089

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

n = 541 for tutor report; n = 918 for pupils report.

^aA pupil was classified as an underachiever if he/she and the tutor rated the pupil as performing lower than the pupils potential in combination with low to average grades. A pupil was classified as a high achiever if he/she was not rated as performing lower than he or she could and if the pupil had high grades.

^#Models adjusted for gender, age at assessment, secondary educational level, ethnic background.

^$Models # additionally adjusted for self-reported neurocognitive functioning, i.e., attention problems, self-control and self-monitoring and planning and initiative.

^*Models $ additionally adjusted for cultural capital, attitude toward teacher, orientation on the future, time spent on sports.