Table 2.
Results from the Categorical Latent Variable Multinomial Logistic Regression Models of the Associations of the Predictors with Latent Profile Membership
| 1 Vs 5 | 2 Vs 5 | 3 Vs 5 | 4 Vs 5 | 1 Vs 4 | ||||||
| Predictors | Coef. | OR | Coef. | OR | Coef. | OR | Coef. | OR | Coef. | OR |
| Volition | -1.268*** | 0.281 | 2.034*** | 7.645 | -0.294 | 0.745 | 1.205*** | 3.336 | -2.473*** | 0.084 |
| Gender | -0.088 | 0.915 | -0.533 | 0.587 | 0.122 | 1.130 | -0.673 | 0.510 | 0.585 | 1.795 |
| Age | -0.372* | 0.690 | -0.242 | 0.785 | 0.258 | 1.294 | -0.280 | 0.756 | -0.092 | 0.912 |
| Ed Lvl | -0.174 | 0.840 | -0.213 | 0.808 | -0.087 | 0.916 | 1.451*** | 4.268 | -1.625*** | 0.197 |
| Income | -0.089 | 0.915 | 0.155 | 1.168 | -0.490** | 0.613 | -0.152 | 0.859 | 0.063 | 1.065 |
| 2 Vs 4 | 3 Vs 4 | 1 Vs 3 | 2 Vs 3 | 1 Vs 2 | ||||||
| Coef. | OR | Coef. | OR | Coef. | OR | Coef. | OR | Coef. | OR | |
| Volition | 0.829+ | 2.291 | -1.499** | 0.223 | -0.974** | 0.378 | 2.328*** | 10.260 | -3.302*** | 0.037 |
| Gender | 0.141 | 1.151 | 0.795 | 2.216 | -0.210 | 0.810 | -0.655 | 0.519 | 0.444 | 1.560 |
| Age | 0.037 | 1.038 | 0.538* | 1.712 | -0.630** | 0.533 | -0.500* | 0.606 | -0.130 | 0.879 |
| Ed Lvl | -1.664*** | 0.189 | -1.539*** | 0.215 | -0.087 | 0.917 | -0.126 | 0.882 | 0.039 | 1.040 |
| Income | 0.307* | 1.360 | -0.338+ | 0.713 | 0.401* | 1.493 | 0.645*** | 1.906 | -0.245+ | 0.783 |
Note. Coeff = logit coefficient; OR = odds ratio. Ed Lvl = Education Level; Gender was coded as a dichotomous variable (0 = male, 1 = female). Profile 1 = Indecent-Precarious; Profile 2 = Highly Decent; Profile 3 = Low Health Care-Low Rights; Profile 4 = Vulnerability-Dominant; Profile 5 = Health Care-Stability. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05, + < .10