Table 1.
Key Mediation Model Regression Coefficients
| Coefficienta | Association | Interpretation: 1-1-1 State-District-School Models (Policy/School Availability) |
2-2-1 State-School-Student Models (Policy/School Availability/Student Consumption) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | X→M | Direct association between state policy banning school competitive venue soda (X) and the likelihood that a district has a similar ban (M) |
Direct association between state policy banning school competitive venue soda (X) and the likelihood that a school has competitive venue soda available (M) |
| B | M→Y | Direct association between district policy banning school competitive venue soda (M) and the likelihood that a school has competitive venue soda (Y), controlling for state policy (X) |
Direct association between school competitive venue soda (M) and the proportion of students in a school reporting drinking soda daily (latent school-level Y), controlling for state policy (X) |
| C | X→Y | Direct association between state policy banning school competitive venue soda (X) and the likelihood that a school has competitive venue soda (Y), controlling for district policy (M) |
Direct association between state policy banning school competitive venue soda (X) and the proportion of students in a school reporting drinking soda daily (latent school- level Y), controlling for school availability (M) |
| a*b | X→M→Y | Association sequence between state policy (X) and school competitive venue soda (Y): Mediation: Significant overall association between state policy (X) and school soda (Y); district policy (M) transmits at least part of the significant association. Indirect effect: No significant overall association between state policy (X) and school soda (Y); state policy indirectly effects school soda by having a significant effect on district policy (M), which then has a significant effect on school soda (Y). |
Association sequence between state policy (X) and student daily soda consumption (latent school-level Y): Mediation: Significant overall association between state policy (X) and student consumption (latent school-level Y); school availability (M) transmits at least part of the significant association. Indirect effect: No significant overall association between state policy (X) and student consumption (latent school-level Y); state policy indirectly effects student consumption by having a significant effect on school soda availability (M), which then has a significant effect on student consumption (latent school-level Y). |
a
Coefficients listed indicate non-standardized multivariate regression coefficients.