Table 2.
Initial Models1 | ||
---|---|---|
Parameter | Adjusted1 | |
OR (95% CI) | p | |
Broken windows score | 1.02 (0.97, 1.06) | 0.5266 |
Family communication | 0.77 (0.65, 0.90) | 0.0012 |
Relationship with mother | 0.71 (0.58, 0.87) | 0.0012 |
Relationship with father | 0.67 (0.56, 0.80) | <.0001 |
Parental monitoring | 0.55 (0.44, 0.68) | <.0001 |
Informal social control | 0.80 (0.71, 0.92) | 0.0010 |
Sense of community | 0.87 (0.74, 1.01) | 0.0683 |
Neighborhood support | ||
Two parent household | 1.04 (0.87, 1..25) | 0.6665 |
One parent household | 0.65 (0.49, 0.85) | 0.0017 |
Inconsistent | 1.08 (0.81, 1.45) | 0.6028 |
Neighborhood concerns – crime/safety | 1.08 (0.98, 1.20) | 0.1257 |
Neighborhood concerns – services | 1.09 (0.99, 1.20) | 0.0876 |
Final Model2 | ||
---|---|---|
Parameter | Adjusted2 | |
OR (95% CI) | P | |
Relationship with father | 0.68 (0.57, 0.83) | <.0001 |
Parental monitoring | 0.58 (0.46, 0.72) | <.0001 |
Informal social control | 0.83 (0.72, 0.96) | 0.0142 |
Neighborhood support | ||
Two parent household | 1.10 (0.91, 1.34) | 0.3304 |
One parent household | 0.73 (0.54, 1.00) | 0.0484 |
Inconsistent | 1.17 (0.85, 1.60) | 0.3385 |
Ten separate initial models were analyzed (one for each variable of interest). Each was adjusted for the potential confounders youth age, gender, race/ethnicity, family structure, ever below the federal poverty level, parental education, neighborhood structural disadvantage, and neighborhood residential instability. ORs for the potential confounding variables are not shown.
One final model was analyzed that adjusted for the potential confounders above and also adjusted for other variables of interest in the final model. Only variables of interest with a p-value ≤ .05 were retained in the final model. ORs for the potential confounding variables are not shown.