Table 2.
Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | SE B | OR | B | SE B | OR | |
Block 1 | ||||||
Age | 0.20 | 0.21 | 1.22 | 0.15 | 0.23 | 1.02 |
Gender | −0.36 | 0.47 | 0.70 | −0.27 | 0.49 | 0.76 |
Grades | −0.61** | 0.18 | 0.54 | −0.54** | 0.19 | 0.58 |
Typical Alcohol Consumptiona | 0.44*** | 0.12 | 1.55 | 0.31* | 0.12 | 1.37 |
Block 2 | ||||||
Prepartying Frequencyb | 0.38** | .014 | 1.46 | |||
−2 Log Likelihood | 142.06*** | 133.11*** | ||||
Nagelkerke R2 | 0.35 | 0.41 |
Note. N=180. B=unstandardized coefficient, OR=Odds ratio based on Exp(B);
Indexed by the AUDIT consumption subscale;
Number of prepartying events in the past month. The model correctly classified 85.6% of the students (false positive rate=4.5%; false negative rate=10.9%).
p<.05,
p<.01,
p<.001.