Table 3.
Bivariate and Multivariate Ordinal Regression Predicting Physical Abuse and Neglect Severity
| Characteristic | Physical abuse | Neglect | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bivariate models | Multivariate model | Bivariate models | Multivariate model | |
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Victim physical vulnerability | ||||
| Functional capacity | 1.15 (0.91–1.45) | 1.07 (0.81–1.43)a | 0.72 (0.57–0.90)** | 0.74 (0.55–0.98)* |
| Poor health | 0.95 (0.42–2.15) | — | 1.75 (0.72–4.22) | — |
| Age | 0.91 (0.87–0.96)** | 0.91 (0.86–0.97)** | 0.96 (0.92–1.00)* | 0.91 (0.87–0.96)** |
| Victim–perpetrator relationship dynamics | ||||
| Victim dependent on perpetrator | 1.21 (0.38–3.90) | — | n/a | — |
| Spouse/partner | 0.47 (0.20–1.08)† | 0.42 (0.15–1.19)† | 0.74 (0.27–2.01) | — |
| Adult child | 0.86 (0.30–2.48) | — | 0.79 (0.35–1.78) | — |
| Grandchild | 5.69 (0.66–49.35) | — | 0.96 (0.22–4.15) | — |
| Paid attendant | 1.18 (0.03–44.35) | — | 2.06 (0.88–4.85)† | 1.65 (0.54–5.03) |
| Home cohabitation | ||||
| Lives alone with perpetrator | 3.25 (1.19–8.94)* | 4.29 (1.35–13.63)* | 1.41 (0.51–3.91) | 4.32 (1.08–17.30)b,* |
| Lives with perpetrator and others | 2.17 (0.46–10.16) | 1.99 (0.38–10.43) | 0.93 (0.32–2.68) | 1.06 (0.32–3.56)b |
| Lives only with non-perpetrator others | 1.72 (0.58–5.09) | 1.06 (1.64–6.30) | 1.84 (0.65–5.23) | 1.43 (0.41–4.92)b |
| Sociocultural | ||||
| Female | 0.53 (0.24–1.23) | — | 0.72 (0.32–1.62) | — |
| African-American | 2.28 (0.89–5.88)† | 1.32 (0.46–3.82) | 0.90 (0.38–2.13) | — |
| Hispanic | 0.50 (0.07–3.59) | 0.57 (0.06–5.13) | 0.68 (0.12–3.88) | — |
| Other | 0.29 (0.02–3.49) | 0.25 (0.02–3.94) | 2.60 (0.50–13.4) | — |
| Less than high school | 0.84 (0.21–3.32) | — | 1.43 (0.56–3.63) | 1.49 (0.51–4.33) |
| High school | 1.03 (0.39–2.68) | — | 2.29 (0.93–5.66)† | 2.83 (1.04–7.70)* |
| Household income | 1.08 (0.88–1.32) | — | 0.83 (0.69–1.0)* | 0.72 (0.57–0.92)** |
| Suburban | 1.01 (0.33–3.06) | — | 0.93 (0.41–2.09) | 1.34 (0.49–3.67) |
| Rural | 1.20 (0.37–3.94) | — | 0.29 (0.07–1.12)† | 0.33 (0.07–1.55) |
| Control | ||||
| Interviewed by proxy | 0.54 (0.10–3.0) | 2.05 (0.59–1.09) | 1.53 (0.56–4.15) | 1.05 (0.25–4.31) |
Note: Independent variable referent groups: health status (good), cohabitation status (lives alone), race/ethnicity (Caucasian), education (more than high-school), and geographical context (urban). Adjusted ordinal regression models satisfied both the parallel lines test (p > .05) and the Likelihood Ratio model fit test (p < .001) [χ2Physical (10, 89) = 28.80; χ2Neglect (12, 109) = 37.28]. Independent variables in the final models had strong tolerance (physical = 0.68 or above, neglect = 0.63 or above) and VIF (physical = 1.48 or below, neglect = 1.68 or below) diagnostics, suggesting no multicollinearity. OR = odds ratio. CI = confidence interval.
aFunctional capacity was included in the final model given its central role to age-associated vulnerability.
bCo-habitation status was included in the final model given its central role in defining home living environment.
*p ≤ .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, †p < .10 (borderline).