Table 2.
Results from multilevel models predicting disordered gambling symptom counts
| Predictor | Base Model |
Personality |
Education |
Income |
Fully Adjusted |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IRR | 95% CI | IRR | 95% CI | IRR | 95% CI | IRR | 95% CI | IRR | 95% CI | |
| Sex | 1.80*** | (1.45, 2.24) | 1.46** | (1.14, 1.87) | 1 78*** | (1.43, 2.21) | 1.88*** | (1.50, 2.35) | 1 47** | (1.14, 1.90) |
| Age | 1.02 | (0.97, 1.08) | 1.01 | (0.95, 1.07) | 1.02 | (0.97, 1.07) | 1.03 | (0.98, 1.08) | 1.02 | (0.96,1.08) |
| WP Disadvantage | 1.11*** | (1.05,1.18) | 1.09*** | (1.02, 1.16) | 1.11*** | (1.05, 1.17) | 1.11*** | (1.05, 1.18) | 1.08* | (1.02, 1.15) |
| BP Disadvantage | 1 13*** | (1.07, 1.20) | 1.08* | (1.01, 1.14) | 1.09** | (1.03, 1.15) | 1.10*** | (1.04, 1.17) | 1.04 | (0.98, 1.11) |
| WP Positive Emotionality | 1.00 | (0.98, 1.01) | 1.00 | (0.98, 1.02) | ||||||
| BP Positive Emotionality | 1.00 | (0.98, 1.01) | 1.00 | (0.98, 1.02) | ||||||
| WP Negative Emotionality | 1.04*** | (1.03, 1.06) | 1.04*** | (1.02, 1.06) | ||||||
| BP Negative Emotionality | 1.07*** | (1.06, 1.09) | 1.07*** | (1.05, 1.09) | ||||||
| WP Constraint | 0.96*** | (0.95, 0.98) | 0.96*** | (0.95, 0.98) | ||||||
| BP Constraint | 0.99 | (0.97, 1.00) | 0.99 | (0.97, 1.00) | ||||||
| WP Educational Attainment | 0.86* | (0.75, 0.97) | 0.90 | (0.77, 1.04) | ||||||
| BP Educational Attainment | 0.77*** | (0.69, 0.86) | 0.85* | (0.75, 0.96) | ||||||
| WP Household Income | 0.94 | (0.88, 1.00) | 0.98 | (0.91, 1.05) | ||||||
| BP Household Income | 0.90** | (0.84, 0.97) | 0.97 | (0.89, 1.05) | ||||||
Note: Because neither the main effect for zygosity (IRR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.83 to 1.34, p = .675) nor the zygosity x within-pair disadvantage effect (IRR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.07, p = .3924) was significant, these predictors were not included in the models.
WP = within-pair, BP = between-pair
*
= p < .05
**
= p < .01
***
= p < .001