Table 4.
GLM interactions. Least squares mean estimates and pairwise comparisons from interaction models. Response variable body image and eating problem scale. Japanese and Finnish adolescents school study
| SDQ emotional symptoms (3‐way model) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LS means | LS means difference | P–valuea | ||
| Females with low level of emotional symptoms: country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 4.67 | 5.90 | –1.23 | < 0.001 | |
| Finnish females: difference in emotional symptoms | Score 0–4 | Score 5–10 | ||
| 4.67 | 8.77 | –4.10 | < 0.001 | |
| Japanese females: difference in emotional symptoms | Score 0–4 | Score 5–10 | ||
| 5.90 | 8.73 | –2.83 | < 0.001 | |
| Males with low level of emotional symptoms: country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 2.74 | 2.61 | 0.13 | ~1.0 | |
| Finnish males: difference in emotional symptoms | Score 0–4 | Score 5–10 | ||
| 2.74 | 5.04 | –2.30 | < 0.001 | |
| Japanese males: difference in emotional symptoms | Score 0–4 | Score 5–10 | ||
| 2.61 | 4.83 | –2.21 | < 0.001 | |
| Females with high level of emotional symptoms: country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 8.77 | 8.73 | 0.04 | ~1.0 | |
| Males with high level of emotional symptoms: country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 5.04 | 4.83 | 0.21 | ~1.0 | |
| SDQ Conduct problems (reduced model) | ||||
| Females: difference in conduct problems | Score 0–3 | Score 4–10 | ||
| 6.15 | 9.04 | –2.89 | < 0.001 | |
| Males: difference in conduct problems | Score 0–3 | Score 4–10 | ||
| 2.65 | 4.33 | –1.68 | < 0.001 | |
| Females: country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 7.09 | 8.10 | –1.01 | < 0.001 | |
| Males: country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 3.44 | 3.55 | –0.11 | ~1.0 | |
| SDQ Hyperactivity (reduced model) | ||||
| Females, difference in hyperactivity | Score 0–5 | Score 6–10 | ||
| 6.14 | 8.78 | –2.64 | < 0.001 | |
| Males: difference in hyperactivity | Score 0–5 | Score 6–10 | ||
| 2.85 | 3.95 | –1.10 | < 0.001 | |
| Females: country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 7.04 | 7.87 | –0.83 | < 0.001 | |
| Males: country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 3.40 | 3.40 | 0.00 | ~1.0 | |
| SDQ Peer relation problems (3‐way model) | ||||
| Females with low level of peer relation problems, country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 5.86 | 7.10 | –1.24 | < 0.001 | |
| Finnish females: difference peer relation problems | Score 0–3 | Score 4–10 | ||
| 5.86 | 7.94 | –2.08 | < 0.001 | |
| Japanese females: difference in peer relation problems | Score 0–3 | Score 4–10 | ||
| 7.10 | 7.65 | –0.55 | 0.51 | |
| Males with low level of peer relation problems: country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 2.86 | 2.92 | –0.07 | ~1.0 | |
| Finnish males: difference in peer relation problems | Score 0–3 | Score 4–10 | ||
| 2.86 | 3.55 | –0.69 | 0.73 | |
| Japanese males: difference in peer relation problems | Score 0–3 | Score 4–10 | ||
| 2.92 | 3.73 | –0.81 | 0.027 | |
| Females with high level of peer relation problems: country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 7.94 | 7.65 | 0.29 | ~1.0 | |
| Males with high level of peer relation problems: country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 3.55 | 3.73 | –0.18 | ~1.0 | |
| SDQ Prosocial behavior (3‐way model) | ||||
| Females with low prosocial behavior level: country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 7.86 | 6.51 | 1.34 | 0.29 | |
| Finnish females: difference in prosocial behavior level | Score 0–4 | Score 5–10 | ||
| 7.86 | 6.15 | 1.71 | 0.052 | |
| Japanese females: difference in prosocial behavior level | Score 0–4 | Score 5–10 | ||
| 6.51 | 7.55 | –1.04 | < 0.001 | |
| Males with low prosocial behavior level: country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 3.09 | 2.81 | 0.28 | ~1.0 | |
| Finnish males: difference in prosocial behavior level | Score 0–4 | Score 5–10 | ||
| 3.09 | 2.95 | 0.14 | ~1.0 | |
| Japanese males: difference in prosocial behavior level | Score 0–4 | Score 5–10 | ||
| 2.81 | 3.37 | –0.56 | 0.20 | |
| Females with high prosocial behavior level: country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 6.15 | 7.55 | –1.41 | < 0.001 | |
| Males with high prosocial behavior level: country difference | Finland | Japan | ||
| 2.95 | 3.37 | –0.42 | 0.54 | |
a
P–value for pairwise different using Bonferroni multiple comparison adjustment with correction coefficient 8 (3‐way models) or 4 (reduced models). LS mean: Least squares mean. P values indicating statistically significance (p < 0.05) are shown in a bold type face.