Table 3.
Odds Ratios From Random-Effects Logit Models Predicting Whether Teens Ever or Always Used Contraceptives in Their Sexual Relationships: Full Sample
| Variable | Ever Used (vs. never used) |
Always Used (vs. never or sometimes used) |
Always Used (vs. sometimes used) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Females | Males | Females | Males | Females | Males | |
| Within-Individual Factors | ||||||
| Teen-partner homogamy | ||||||
| Teen-partner homogamy scale | 1.09 | 1.06 | 1.10* | 1.05 | 1.11* | 1.04 |
| Relationship type (ref. = romantic) | ||||||
| Liked | 0.66*** | 0.88 | 1.25* | 1.09 | 2.37*** | 1.24 |
| Nonromantic | 0.42*** | 0.48*** | 1.23* | 1.14 | 11.82*** | 6.68*** |
| Exclusivity | ||||||
| Nonmonogamous relationship | 1.16 | 1.22 | 1.05 | 1.06 | 0.90 | 0.88 |
| Age at initiation | ||||||
| Age at first intercourse with partner | 1.12 | 1.22** | 1.11* | 1.07 | 1.09 | 0.86* |
| Sexual history | ||||||
| Number of previous sexual partners | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.90 | 0.90 |
| Length of time since last relationship ended | 1.02 | 1.02 | 1.01 | 1.01 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| % of previous relationships in which respondent always used contraceptives | 2.55*** | 3.05*** | 2.71*** | 2.37** | 2.69*** | 2.39*** |
| Any previous relationship in which respondent used hormonal contraceptives | 1.33* | 0.92 | 1.74*** | 1.05 | 2.08*** | 1.18 |
| % of previous relationships that were “risky” | 0.77 | 1.38 | 0.97 | 1.11 | 1.29 | 0.86 |
| Length of sexual relationship | 1.05*** | 1.02** | 1.00 | 0.99** | 0.97*** | 0.96*** |
| Between-Individual Factors | ||||||
| Two biological/adoptive parents | 1.01 | 1.21 | 1.02 | 1.35** | 1.03 | 1.40** |
| Parent education | 1.07* | 1.02 | 1.04 | 1.01 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
| Race/ethnicity (ref. = white) | ||||||
| Black | 1.25 | 1.39* | 1.19 | 1.53** | 1.06 | 1.46* |
| Hispanic | 0.83 | 0.72* | 1.07 | 0.83 | 1.50* | 1.21 |
| Other race/ethnicity | 0.91 | 0.56** | 0.92 | 0.74 | 0.89 | 1.26 |
| PVT score | 1.03*** | 1.02*** | 1.01*** | 1.01*** | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Had pregnancy and AIDS education | 0.86 | 0.94 | 0.89 | 1.18 | 0.92 | 1.54** |
| Age at first intercourse with first reported partner | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.98 | 1.02 |
| rho | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.11 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.12 |
| Likelihood Ratio Test of rho | 26.82*** | 28.14*** | 4.89* | 10.87*** | 3.43* | 4.56* |
| Wald Chi-Square | 386.8*** | 229.8*** | 176.91*** | 119.84*** | 329.31*** | 199.02*** |
| Likelihood Ratio | −2,707.85 | −2,148.99 | −3,469.60 | −2,685.71 | −2,073.43 | −1,403.74 |
| df | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 |
| N | 5,344 | 4,324 | 5,344 | 4,324 | 3,980 | 3,335 |
Note: These models also controlled for whether the respondent had partners not captured in the sexual history, sequentially ordering the respondent’s relationships required making assumptions about duplicate dates, the number of nonromantic partners was potentially overestimated, the relationship was reported at Wave 1, and the relationship was the teen’s first one in the sequential file.
*
p < .05;
**
p < .01;
***
p < .001