Table 2.
The results of the multilevel regression models predicting psychosomatic symptoms among girls (Point estimates and standard errors).
| Concert |
Movie |
Sports |
Dance |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main effect model | Interaction effect model | Main effect model | Interaction effect model | Main effect model | Interaction effect model | Main effect model | Interaction effect model | |
| Constant | −1.34(1.46) | −1.02(1.35) | −2.27(1.77) | −2.04(1.68) | −1.01(1.59) | −0.85(1.57) | −1.72(1.80) | −1.55(1.70) |
| Fixed effects | ||||||||
| Gini (household disposable income) | 5.36(12.15) | 3.24(11.25) | 1.82(14.74) | 0.32(14.01) | 5.03(13.27) | 4.21(13.06) | 5.49(15.03) | 2.98(14.21) |
| Real GDP per capita | −2.26(13.38) | −1.53(1.35) | 3.02(16.24) | 3.53(15.42) | −2.65(14.62) | −2.47(14.38) | −1.20(16.55) | 0.23(15.64) |
| Unaffordability (Ref. Never) | ||||||||
| Occasionally | 0.30(0.03)*** | −0.07(0.36) | 0.34(0.03)*** | 0.11(0.34) | 0.24(0.04)*** | −0.64(0.45) | 0.39(0.03)*** | −0.49(0.37) |
| Several times | 0.69(0.04)*** | −1.49(0.42)*** | 0.68(0.04)*** | −0.56(0.41) | 0.39(0.05)*** | −0.55(0.56) | 0.66(0.04)*** | −0.69(0.47) |
| Gini by Unaffordability | ||||||||
| Occasionally | – | 1.41(1.36) | – | 0.85(1.27) | – | 3.34(1.71)0.051 | – | 3.40(1.43)* |
| Several times | – | 8.34(1.58)*** | – | 4.80(1.57)** | – | 3.58(2.14)0.094 | – | 5.21(1.81)** |
| Random effects | ||||||||
| At level 2: intercept | 0.01(0.00) | 0.00(0.00) | 0.01(0.01) | 0.01(0.01) | 0.01(0.01) | 0.01(0.01) | 0.01(0.01) | 0.01(0.01) |
| At level 2: slope | – | 0.00(0.00) | – | 0.00(0.00) | – | 0.00(0.00) | – | 0.00(0.00) |
| At level 1: intercept | 1.19(0.02) | 1.19(0.02) | 1.18(0.02) | 1.18(0.02) | 1.23(0.02) | 1.23(0.02) | 1.19(0.02) | 1.19(0.02) |
The coefficients are unstandardized beta coefficients. The interaction model regarding dance did not converge at default convergence threshold and the presented results are based on the values obtained from 16,000 iterations. We achieved the model convergence by lowering the convergence threshold and compared the results: they were almost identical in terms of its estimates and significance. Only slight differences were sometimes observed at the third decimal point level. All significant interactions are plotted in Fig. 2. *** p< 0.001 ** p< 0.01 * p< 0.05.