Table 2.
Model | b | p value | R2 | R2 adj | LRT (df) | p value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline model I (B1): with CA as regressor | |||||||
B1 | CA | 0.44 | <0.001 | 3% | 3% | ||
Baseline model II (B2): adding gender to B1 | |||||||
Compared against B1 | |||||||
B2 | Gender | −0.30 | <0.001 | 4% | 4% | 25.33 (1) | <0.001 |
Adding RFs and age-14 distress (D14) separately to B2 | |||||||
Compared against B2 | |||||||
M1 | RFs | −0.86 | – | 20% | 19% | 297.25 (10) | <0.001 |
Compared against B2 | |||||||
M2 | D14 | 0.63 | <0.001 | 23% | 23% | 357.07 (1) | <0.001 |
Adding RFs and age-14 distress (D14) together to B2 | |||||||
Compared against M2 | |||||||
M3 | RFs | −0.19 | – | 24% | 23% | 22.11 (10) | 0.07 |
Compared against M1 | |||||||
M3 | D14 | 0.54 | <0.001 | 24% | 23% | 81.93 (1) | <0.001 |
There is no p value for the RFs in model M1 and M3, as the bs of the RFs are here summed up to illustrate whether the cumulative effect is positive or negative, but as the RFs are ten individuals regressors there is no cumulative p value.
adj adjusted, LRT Likelihood-ratio test.