Table 3.
Logistic models of activity limitations on select predictors (N=76,564).
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education (ref.=HS diploma) | ||||
| HS dropouts | 2.10*** | 2.06*** | 1.26*** | 1.17*** |
| GED | 2.09*** | 2.04*** | 1.48*** | 1.35*** |
| Control variables | ||||
| Age | 1.05*** | 1.05*** | 1.03*** | 1.03*** |
| Female | 1.04 | 1.03 | 0.67*** | 0.68*** |
| Race/ethnicity (ref.=NH white) | ||||
| Black | 1.27*** | 1.05 | 0.77*** | 0.77*** |
| Hispanic | 0.89** | 0.82*** | 0.69*** | 0.71*** |
| Other | 1.51*** | 1.35*** | 1.08 | 1.01 |
| Year of interview | 1.02*** | 1.02*** | 1.02*** | 1.01** |
| Marital status (ref.=married) | ||||
| Widowed | 1.93*** | 1.35*** | 1.38*** | |
| Divorced | 2.04*** | 1.91*** | 1.92*** | |
| Never married | 2.55*** | 1.87*** | 1.94*** | |
| Unknown | 1.32* | 1.06 | 1.21 | |
| Region (ref.=South) | ||||
| Northeast | 0.97 | 1.03 | 1.03 | |
| North Central | 1.05 | 1.14*** | 1.13*** | |
| West | 1.16*** | 1.18*** | 1.21*** | |
| Health insurance (ref.=insured) | ||||
| Uninsured | 0.74*** | 0.58*** | 0.59*** | |
| Unknown | 0.64 | 0.46** | 0.50** | |
| Economic factors | ||||
| Family income | 0.71*** | 0.73*** | ||
| Employment (ref.=employed) | ||||
| Unemployed | 1.84*** | 1.85*** | ||
| Not in LF | 8.05*** | 7.95*** | ||
| Unknown | 0.69 | 0.80 | ||
| Body weight (ref=not obese) | ||||
| Obese | 1.64*** | |||
| Unknown | 1.35*** | |||
| Smoking (ref.=never smoked) | ||||
| Past smoker | 1.28*** | |||
| Current smoker | 1.54*** | |||
| Unknown | 0.99 | |||
| Alcohol use (ref.=current use) | ||||
| Never | 1.19*** | |||
| Former | 1.72*** | |||
| Unknown | 0.96 | |||
*
p<.05,
**
p<.01,
***
p<.001
When we re-estimate these models with GED as the omitted education category, the results show that HS dropouts and GEDs are not significantly different in Models 1 and 2; the dropout group actually has significantly lower odds of limitations than GED recipients (OR=.85, p<.001 in Model 3; OR=.87, p<.01 in Model 4).