Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Oct 30.
Published in final edited form as: J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Oct 1;62(3):10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.012. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.012

Table 4.

Discrepancy in adolescents’ HRQOL rated by the dyads after adjusting for covariates

Physical
functioning		 Emotional
functioning		 Social
functioning		 School
functioning
Groupa 8.12*** (0.38)b 7.71*** (0.50)b 11.84*** (0.73)b 12.94*** (0.66)b
Age of child −0.86 −0.44 0.62 1.43
Gender of childc 6.48** 4.43** 4.02** −1.97
Race of child
  Black 7.38** 2.40 4.45** 2.84
  Others 3.84 0.26 −1.47 2.15
Health status report by parentsd
  Very good −1.21 −3.07 −2.67 −4.22
  Good −9.77** −6.16*** −6.04* −7.89*
  Fair −13.93*** −9.58*** −6.42* −9.69*
  Poor −18.51*** −15.12*** −8.29* −10.98*
Health status by CRGse
  Acute 3.18 3.89 4.86 8.33
  Mild chronic 2.59 −3.26 −5.53 −9.41*
  Moderate chronic −3 13 −1.56 −2.86 −2.59
  Severe chronic −11.76*** −2.05 −1.37 −2.55
*

P < 0.05;

**

P < 0.01;

***

P < 0.001.

a

Parent is the reference group.

b

Value in parenthesis is the effect size: negligible (<0.2), small (0.2~0.49), moderate (0.5~0.79), and large (≥0.8).

c

Girl is the reference group.

d

Excellent health is the reference group.

e

Healthy is the reference group.