TABLE 2.
Hierarchical mixed model of ADHD symptomology and habit disruption: ΔNoGo_Accuracy.
| Variable | VIF | β | B [95% CI] | t | sig. |
| Model 1 | |||||
| Gender | 1.01 | 0.04 (0.07) | 0.02[ −0.03,0.07] | 0.60 | 0.553 |
| Phase_Order | 1.01 | 0.10 (0.07) | 0.02[ −0.01,0.04] | 1.48 | 0.142 |
| Driving | 1.00 | −0.02(0.07) | > −0.01[ > −0.01, < 0.01] | –0.28 | 0.779 |
| Model 2 | |||||
| Gender | 1.08 | 0.04 (0.07) | 0.02[ −0.04,0.07] | 0.62 | 0.537 |
| Phase_Order | 1.04 | 0.09 (0.07) | 0.01[ −0.01,0.03] | 1.25 | 0.215 |
| Driving | 1.30 | 0.02 (0.08) | > −0.01[ > −0.01, < 0.01] | 0.24 | 0.807 |
| ASRS_Inattentive | 1.62 | −0.06(0.09) | > −0.01[ −0.01, < 0.01] | –0.69 | 0.491 |
| ASRS_Hyperactive | 1.71 | 0.10 (0.09) | < 0.01[ > −0.01,0.01] | 1.12 | 0.263 |
| Diagnosis | 1.30 | −0.05(0.08) | −0.04[ −0.16,0.08] | –0.61 | 0.542 |
| COHS | 1.06 | −0.10(0.07) | > −0.01[ > −0.01, < 0.01] | –1.41 | 0.162 |
| Model 3 | |||||
| Gender | 1.08 | 0.04 (0.07) | 0.02[ −0.03,0.07] | 0.64 | 0.521 |
| Phase_Order | 1.04 | 0.09 (0.07) | 0.01[ −0.01,0.03] | 1.30 | 0.198 |
| Driving | 1.30 | 0.02 (0.08) | > −0.01[ > −0.01, < 0.01] | 0.25 | 0.799 |
| ASRS_Inattentive | 1.62 | −0.06(0.08) | > −0.01[ −0.01, < 0.01] | –0.72 | 0.474 |
| ASRS_Hyperactive | 1.71 | 0.10 (0.09) | < 0.01[ > −0.01,0.01] | 1.17 | 0.245 |
| Diagnosis | 1.30 | −0.05(0.08) | −0.04[ −0.15,0.07] | –0.64 | 0.526 |
| COHS | 1.06 | −0.10(0.07) | > −0.01[ > −0.01, < 0.01] | –1.47 | 0.146 |
| Feedback | 1 | −0.28(0.07) | −0.09[ −0.14,−0.05] | −4.13 | > 0.001 |
| Model 4 | |||||
| Gender | 1.08 | 0.04 (0.07) | 0.02[ −0.03,0.07] | 0.64 | 0.525 |
| Phase_Order | 1.04 | 0.09 (0.07) | 0.01[ −0.01,0.07] | 1.28 | 0.202 |
| Driving | 1.30 | 0.02 (0.08) | > −0.01[ −0.01,0.03] | 0.25 | 0.801 |
| ASRS_Inattentive | 3.15 | −0.06(0.08) | > −0.01[ −0.01, < 0.01] | –0.71 | 0.478 |
| ASRS_Hyperactive | 3.29 | 0.10 (0.09) | < 0.01[ > −0.01,0.01] | 1.16 | 0.250 |
| Diagnosis | 2.34 | −0.05(0.08) | −0.05[ −0.19,0.10] | –0.63 | 0.530 |
| COHS | 2.10 | −0.10(0.07) | > −0.01[ > −0.01, < 0.01] | –1.45 | 0.150 |
| Feedback | 64.79 | −0.28(0.07) | 0.01[ −0.34,0.37] | −4.12 | > 0.001 |
| ASRS_Inattentive × Feedback | 16.49 | 0.05 (0.08) | < 0.01[ −0.01,0.01] | 0.62 | 0.539 |
| ASRS_Hyperactive × Feedback | 13.58 | −0.01(0.08) | > −0.01[ −0.01,0.01] | –0.16 | 0.869 |
| Diagnosis × Feedback | 2.14 | 0.02 (0.07) | 0.02[ −0.17,0.21] | 0.24 | 0.811 |
| COHS × Feedback | 57.35 | 0.06 (0.07) | > −0.01[ > −0.01, < 0.01] | –0.86 | 0.391 |
| Model comparisons | |||||
| Model | R2 | Log likel. | χ2 | χ2sig. | ΔR2 |
| Model 1 | 0.01 | 72.53 | |||
| Model 2 | 0.03 | 74.13 | 3.19 | 0.526 | 0.01 |
| Model 3 | 0.11 | 82.68 | 17.10 | > 0.001 | 0.08 |
| Model 4 | 0.11 | 83.46 | 1.56 | 0.815 | 0.01 |
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.