Table 3.

Negative Binomial Regression Analysis Examining Number of Sexual Topics Discussed with Dating Partners

	B	SE	Wald Chi-Square	MR [95% CI]
Step 1: Main Effects
Age	0.20	0.08	7.10**	1.23 [1.06, 1.42]
Gender	−0.12	0.12	1.02	0.88 [0.69, 1.13]
Ethnicity: African American	0.11	0.15	0.55	1.12 [0.83, 1.49]
Ethnicity: Latino	0.20	0.16	1.55	1.22 [0.89, 1.66]
Ethnicity: Mixed/Other	−0.08	0.24	0.10	0.93 [0.57, 1.49]
Sexual Activity Status	−0.57	0.18	10.24**	0.56 [0.40, 0.80]
Parent Sexual Communication	0.08	0.03	9.04**	1.09 [1.03, 1.15]
Best Friend Sexual Communication	0.37	0.03	147.54***	1.44 [1.36, 1.53]
Step 2: Parent by Friend Interaction
Age	0.20	0.08	6.86**	1.22 [1.05, 1.42]
Gender	−0.13	0.12	1.09	0.88 [0.69, 1.12]
Ethnicity: African American	0.12	0.15	0.61	1.12 [0.84, 1.50]
Ethnicity: Latino	0.20	0.16	1.64	1.23 [0.90, 1.67]
Ethnicity: Mixed/Other	−0.05	0.24	0.05	0.95 [0.59, 1.53]
Sexual Activity Status	−0.55	0.18	9.40**	0.58 [0.41, 0.82]
Parent Sexual Communication	0.10	0.03	12.01**	1.11 [1.05, 1.17]
Best Friend Sexual Communication	0.38	0.03	148.22***	1.46 [1.37, 1.55]
Parent × Best Friend Communication	−0.03	0.01	4.00*	0.98 [0.95, 0.99]

Note. MR [95% CI] = Mean Ratio [95% Confidence Interval]. Gender: 0=girls, 1=boys. Reference category for ethnicity = Caucasian. Sexual Activity Status: 0=has not had sex, 1=has had sex. N = 589 for negative binomial regression model; participants were excluded from this analysis if they were missing data on parent or friend communication (n=7), sexual activity status (n=6), or ethnicity (n=1).

^*p<.05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.