. 2015 Apr 1;11(2):139–147. doi: 10.1089/chi.2014.0110

Table 4.

Logistic Regression Predicting Child PC Use on Weekdays by Parental Control and Parental Nurturance, with Parental Efficacy To Restrict Screen Viewing as a Potential Mediator

Parental control	Adjusted^a (with clustering)
Step 1: Outcome=child PC use on weekdays^b	OR	95% CI	p
Parental control (C)	0.99	0.89–1.10	0.864
	Pseudo-R², 0.023; p<0.001
Step 2a) Predictor: parental control	Coeff	95% CI	p
(a) Outcome: Efficacy to influence screen viewing (A1)	0.25	0.14–0.36	<0.001
	R², 0.031; p<0.001
Step 2b: Mediator on outcome	OR	95% CI	p
Efficacy to influence screen viewing (B)	0.88	0.82–0.95	0.001
	Pseudo-R² 0.031; p<0.001
Step 3: Outcome=child PC use on weekdays^b	OR	95% CI	p
Parental control (C’)	1.02	0.91–1.14	0.709
Efficacy to influence screen viewing	0.88	0.81–0.81	0.001
	R², 0.031; p<0.001
Mediation statistics:		Bias-corrected 95% CI
Indirect effect	−0.02	−0.04 to −0.01
Proportion of total effect mediated	2.89

Parental nurturance	Adjusted^a (with clustering)
Step 1: Outcome=child PC use on weekdays^b	OR	95% CI	p
Parental nurturance (C)	0.97	0.94–1.00	0.044
	Pseudo-R², 0.026; p<0.001
Step 2a: Predictor: parental nurturance	Coeff	95% CI	p
(a) Outcome: efficacy to influence screen viewing (A1)	0.12	0.09–0.15	<0.001
	R², 0.084; p<0.001
Step 2b: Mediator on outcome	OR	95% CI	p
Efficacy to influence screen viewing (B)	0.88	0.82–0.95	0.001
	Pseudo-R², 0.031; p<0.001
Step 3: Outcome=child PC use on weekdays^b	OR	95% CI	p
Parental nurturance (C’)	0.98	0.95–1.02	0.268
Efficacy to influence screen viewing	0.89	0.82–0.96	0.004
	R², 0.032; p<0.001
Mediation statistics:		Bias-corrected 95% CI
Indirect effect	−0.03	−0.05 to −0.01
Proportion of total effect mediated	0.41

^{^a}

Adjusted for child BMI z-score, IMD, and parental weekday PC use.

^{^b}

Some use versus no use.

PC, personal computer; IMD, index of multiple deprivation; OR, odds ratio; Coeff, coefficient; CI, confidence interval.