Table 2.
Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting risk-taking
| Variable | β | 95% CI (LL, UL) | t | SE | R | R2 | ΔR2 | F | ΔF | ΔF p | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 0.34 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 3.15 | 3.15 | 0.052 | 0.052 | ||||
| Age | 0.30 | (5.64, 169.78) | 2.15 | 40.82 | 0.037* | ||||||
| Gender | 0.12 | (−123.40, 308.15) | 0.86 | 107.32 | 0.394 | ||||||
| Model 2 | 0.37 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 1.40 | 0.33 | 0.804 | 0.241 | ||||
| Age | 0.32 | (7.97, 178.59) | 2.20 | 42.35 | 0.033* | ||||||
| Gender | 0.14 | (−113.59, 335.06) | 0.99 | 111.38 | 0.325 | ||||||
| Agency | − 0.01 | (−23.92, 23.23) | − 0.03 | 11.71 | 0.977 | ||||||
| Pathway | − 0.15 | (−30.44, 11.58) | − 0.90 | 10.43 | 0.371 | ||||||
| RD | − 0.04 | (−26.59, 20.29) | − 0.27 | 11.64 | 0.788 | ||||||
| Model 3 | 0.61 | 0.37 | 0.24 | 3.60 | 8.00 | 0.001*** | 0.004** | ||||
| Age | 0.39 | (38.09, 189.33) | 3.03 | 37.50 | 0.004** | ||||||
| Gender | 0.11 | (−111.81, 285.82) | 0.88 | 98.59 | 0.382 | ||||||
| Agency | 0.07 | (−16.71, 26.38) | 0.45 | 10.68 | 0.653 | ||||||
| Pathway | − 0.27 | (−37.08, 1.80) | − 1.83 | 9.64 | 0.074 | ||||||
| RD | − 0.22 | (−37.97, 5.71) | − 1.49 | 10.83 | 0.144 | ||||||
| Agency X RD | − 0.51 | (−14.26, − 3.28) | − 3.22 | 2.72 | 0.002** | ||||||
| Pathway X RD | − 0.04 | (−6.30, 4.76) | − 0.28 | 2.74 | 0.780 |
Note. N = 51; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 LL and UL indicate the lower and upper limit of a Confidence Interval (for B); A post hoc power analysis indicated that our results produced a power of 97.7%, (1-β err prob = 0.977) indicating that this study had an adequate sample size