. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Jul 1.

Published in final edited form as: Acad Pediatr. 2016 Feb 6;16(5):468–474. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.02.003

Table 3.

Cumulative Material Hardship and Internal Locus of Control over the Prevention of Child Obesity

Cumulative Hardships			Model 1^a		Model 2^b
Cumulative Hardships	Internal Locus of Control (Continuous Score)^c
	Total n (%)	Mean (SD)	Beta	95% CI	Beta	95% CI
No Hardship	218 (39.9)	19.22 (1.64)	REF		REF
1 Hardship	180 (32.9)	19.04 (1.50)	.07	−.01 to .09	.05	−.03 to .08
2 Hardships	91 (16.6)	18.79 (1.64)	.11	.02 to .15	.09	−.004 to .13
3–4 Hardships	58 (10.6)	18.36 (2.13)	.16	.07 to .22	.13	.03 to .20
	Low Internal Locus of Control (Categorical Variable)
	Total n (%)	With low LOC n (%)	OR	95% CI	AOR	95% CI
No Hardship	218 (39.9)	33 (15.1)	REF		REF
1 Hardship	180 (32.9)	46 (25.6)	1.92	1.17 – 3.17	1.74	1.04 – 2.93
2 Hardships	91 (16.6)	30 (33.0)	2.75	1.56 – 4.88	2.40	1.30 – 4.42
3–4 Hardships	58 (10.6)	22 (37.9)	3.42	1.80 – 6.54	2.70	1.35 – 5.41

Model 1 uses regression models with number of hardships entered simultaneously into model, using “no hardship” as the reference group.

Model 2 uses regression models with number of hardships entered simultaneously into model as well as additional potential confounders including US born, maternal education, marital status, working status, first child, depressive symptoms, and pre-pregnancy BMI ≥ 25, using “no hardship” as the reference group

Multiple linear regressions were performed utilizing a log-transformation of LOC-PCO scores that had been reversed to account for left skewing. Higher Betas represent lower LOC-PCO scores.