Table 2.
Summary of logistic regression for scoring highly (6/6) on interpretation tasks (n = 253*)
| Variables | B | S.E. | Wald | Df | Sig | Odds Ratio | 95% C.I. for Odds Ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||||
| Age | -0.04 | 0.02 | 6.12 | 1 | 0.01 | 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.99 |
| Trustworthy | 5.98 | 4 | 0.2 | |||||
| Highly Untrustworthy | -19.25 | 22353 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | . |
| Highly Trustworthy | -18.32 | 13481 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | . |
| Neutral | 1.18 | 0.56 | 4.55 | 1 | 0.03 | 3.27 | 1.1 | 9.69 |
| Trustworthy | 1.35 | 0.56 | 5.84 | 1 | 0.02 | 3.87 | 1.29 | 11.62 |
| DTCCustomers(1) | 0.71 | 0.35 | 3.99 | 1 | 0.046 | 2.03 | 1.01 | 4.06 |
| EfficacyAve | -0.24 | 0.18 | 1.7 | 1 | 0.19 | 0.79 | 0.55 | 1.13 |
| Constant | -0.89 | 0.8 | 1.22 | 1 | 0.27 | 0.41 | ||
Note: 6 participants from the original 264 did not answer the trustworthy question and thus were not included in this regression; 5 participants were removed as outliers for having studentized residuals >2.75