Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Adolesc Health. 2015 Aug;57(2):186–191. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.04.015

Table 3.

Standardized effects for indirect paths in the final model shown in Figure 1

Effect p 95% CI
Total indirect effect: Momsmk→Use .045 .001 .019, .071
  Momsmk→Intent→HSsmk→Use .012 .009 .003, .020
  Momsmk→HSsmk→Use .018 .033 .001, .034
  Momsmk→Intent→Use .015 .052 .000, .031
Total indirect effect: Trying→Use .125 .000 .081, .169
  Trying→Intent→HSsmk→Use .034 .000 .018, .050
  Trying→HSsmk→Use .046 .001 .019, .074
  Trying→Intent→Use .045 .027 .005, .085
Total indirect effect: Senseek→Use .036 .000 .017, .055
  Senseek→Intent→HSsmk→Use .015 .001 .006, .025
  Senseek→Intent→Use .020 .021 .003, .037

Note. The path from one variable to another is indicated by an arrow. For example, Momsmk→Intent→Use = the path from mother’s smoking through intentions to any novel product use. The total indirect effect for a variable is the sum of the specific indirect effects for that variable.

CI = confidence interval; Momsmk = mother’s smoking; Intent = intentions to use substances; HSsmk = high school smoking trajectory; Trying = tried substances by Grade 8; Senseek = sensation seeking.