Table 3.
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 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.419 | 0.419 | ||||
| Age | 0.04 | (−19.57, 25.93) | 0.28 | 11.30 | 0.780 | ||||||
| Gender | − 0.18 | (−304.01, 68.17) | − 1.28 | 92.45 | 0.209 | ||||||
| Family income | − 0.18 | (−30.47, 7.42) | − 1.22 | 9.41 | 0.227 | ||||||
| Model 2 | 0.25 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.47 | 0.03 | 0.993 | 0.830 | ||||
| Age | 0.05 | (−20.96, 28.97) | 0.32 | 12.38 | 0.748 | ||||||
| Gender | − 0.19 | (−319.45, 74.57) | − 1.25 | 97.69 | 0.217 | ||||||
| Family income | − 0.19 | (−33.76, 8.92) | − 1.17 | 10.58 | 0.247 | ||||||
| Agency | 0.06 | (−26.18, 33.33) | 0.24 | 14.75 | 0.810 | ||||||
| Pathway | − 0.01 | (−27.16, 26.24) | − 0.04 | 13.24 | 0.972 | ||||||
| Condition | − 0.02 | (−199.47, 183.53) | − 0.08 | 94.96 | 0.933 | ||||||
| Model 3 | 0.56 | 0.32 | 0.26 | 2.39 | 7.72 | 0.001*** | 0.033* | ||||
| Age | 0.02 | (−20.35, 24.16) | 0.17 | 11.02 | 0.863 | ||||||
| Gender | − 0.22 | (−311.30, 35.04) | − 1.61 | 85.75 | 0.115 | ||||||
| Family income | − 0.41 | (−47.07, −6.39) | − 2.65 | 10.07 | 0.011* | ||||||
| Agency | − 0.24 | (−43.99, 14.91) | − 1.00 | 14.58 | 0.325 | ||||||
| Pathway | − 0.09 | (−31.93, 20.48) | − 0.44 | 12.98 | 0.661 | ||||||
| Condition | − 0.18 | (−267.56, 84.55) | − 1.05 | 87.18 | 0.300 | ||||||
| Agency X Condition | 0.63 | (11.19, 134.94) | 2.39 | 30.64 | 0.022* | ||||||
| Pathway X Condition | 0.18 | (−36.56, 80.83) | 0.76 | 29.06 | 0.451 |
Note. N = 50; *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 90.9%, (1-β err prob = 0.909) indicating that this study had an adequate sample size