Skip to main content
. 2019 Sep 3;10:1997. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01997

TABLE 1.

Hierarchical mixed model of ADHD symptomology and habit expression: ΔNoGo_Accuracy.

Variable VIF β (SE) B [95% CI] t sig.
Model 1
Gender 1.01 0.15(0.07) 0.06[ −0.11, > −0.01] −2.13 0.036
Phase_Order 1.01 −0.01(0.07) > −0.01[ −0.02,0.02] –0.09 0.931
Driving 1.00 0.08 (0.07) < 0.01[ > −0.01, < 0.01] 1.15 0.252
Model 2
Gender 1.08 0.14(0.07) 0.05[ −0.11, > −0.01] −2.00 0.049
Phase_Order 1.04 −0.01(0.07) > −0.01[ −0.02,0.02] –0.15 0.877
Driving 1.30 0.08 (0.08) < 0.01[ > −0.01, < 0.01] 1.08 0.283
ASRS_Inattentive 1.62 −0.01(0.09) > −0.01[ −0.01, < 0.01] –0.08 0.939
ASRS_Hyperactive 1.71 0.05 (0.09) < 0.01[ > −0.01,0.01] 0.54 0.591
Diagnosis 1.30 0.01 (0.08) 0.01[ −0.11,0.12] 0.14 0.891
COHS 1.06 −0.04(0.07) > −0.01[ > −0.01, < 0.01] –0.60 0.548
Model 3
Gender 1.08 0.14(0.07) 0.05[ −0.10, > −0.01] −2.10 0.039
Phase_Order 1.04 −0.01(0.07) > −0.01[ −0.02,0.02] –0.16 0.871
Driving 1.30 0.09 (0.08) < 0.01[ > 0.01, < 0.01] 1.13 0.260
ASRS_Inattentive 1.62 −0.01(0.08) > −0.01[ > −0.01, < 0.01] –0.08 0.936
ASRS_Hyperactive 1.71 0.05 (0.09) < 0.01[ > −0.01,0.01] 0.57 0.573
Diagnosis 1.30 0.01 (0.08) 0.01[ −0.10,0.11] 0.14 0.885
COHS 1.06 −0.04(0.07) > −0.01[ > −0.01, < 0.01] –0.63 0.528
Stim_Familiarity 1 0.31(0.07) 0.10[0.06,0.15] 4.66 > 0.001
Model 4
Gender 1.08 0.14(0.07) 0.05[ −0.10, > −0.01] −2.11 0.039
Phase_Order 1.04 −0.01(0.07) > −0.01[ −0.02,0.02] –0.16 0.871
Driving 1.30 0.09 (0.08) < 0.01[ > −0.01, < 0.01] 1.14 0.260
ASRS_Inattentive 3.17 −0.01(0.08) < 0.01[ −0.01,0.01] –0.08 0.936
ASRS_Hyperactive 3.31 0.05 (0.09) < 0.01[ > −0.01,0.01] 0.57 0.573
Diagnosis 2.35 0.01 (0.08) −0.06[ −0.20,0.08] 0.14 0.885
COHS 2.12 −0.04(0.07) > −0.01[ > −0.01, < 0.01] –0.64 0.528
Stim_Familiarity 64.79 0.31(0.07) 0.13[ −0.47,0.22] 4.68 > 0.001
ASRS_Inattentive × Stim_Familiarity 16.51 −0.02(0.08) > −0.01[ −0.01,0.01] –0.29 0.774
ASRS_Hyperactive × Stim_Familiarity 13.60 −0.05(0.08) > −0.01[ −0.01,0.01] –0.56 0.575
Diagnosis × Stim_Familiarity 2.16 0.10 (0.07) 0.15[ −0.04,0.34] 1.51 0.134
COHS × Stim_Familiarity 57.37 0.12 (0.07) < 0.01[ > −0.01,0.01] 1.74 0.085

Model comparisons

Model R2 Log likel. χ2 χ2sig. ΔR2

Model 1 0.03 79.53
Model 2 0.03 79.87 0.70 0.952 > 0.01
Model 3 0.13 90.64 21.53 > 0.001 0.10
Model 4 0.15 93.73 6.19 0.186 0.03

Top layer of table depicts all regressors included in the hierarchical model. Model Comparisons layer depicts the predictive strength of each model, as compared to its previous step. VIF, Variance Inflation Factor; SE, Standard Error; CI, Confidence Interval; Log likel., Log likelihood. Significant p-values depicted in bold typeface. Analyses have been outlier corrected, with resulting deviations highlighted in the text. 95% confidence intervals were obtained by bootstrapping 1000 samples in each model.