Table 4.
Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting gambling severity
| Variable | β | 95% CI (LL, UL) | t | SE | R | R2 | ΔR2 | F | ΔF | ΔF p | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 0.20 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 2.46 | 2.46 | 0.090 | 0.090 | ||||
| Age | − 0.11 | (− 0.03, 0.01) | − 1.17 | 0.01 | 0.245 | ||||||
| Gender | − 0.17 | (− 0.95, 0.04) | − 1.83 | 0.25 | 0.069 | ||||||
| Model 2 | 0.46 | 0.21 | 0.17 | 6.13 | 8.27 | 0.001*** | 0.001*** | ||||
| Age | − 0.06 | (− 0.02, 0.01) | − 0.77 | 0.01 | 0.445 | ||||||
| Gender | − 0.13 | (− 0.83, 0.11) | − 1.51 | 0.24 | 0.134 | ||||||
| Agency | − 0.28 | (− 0.10, − 0.02) | − 2.69 | 0.02 | 0.008** | ||||||
| Pathways | − 0.07 | (− 0.07, 0.03) | − 0.63 | 0.03 | 0.528 | ||||||
| RD | 0.17 | (− 0.01, 0.08) | 1.86 | 0.02 | 0.065 | ||||||
| Model 3 | 0.49 | 0.24 | 0.04 | 5.27 | 2.68 | 0.073 | 0.001*** | ||||
| Age | − 0.07 | (− 0.02, 0.01) | − 0.82 | 0.01 | 0.412 | ||||||
| Gender | − 0.12 | (− 0.79, 0.14) | − 1.37 | 0.24 | 0.173 | ||||||
| Agency | − 0.30 | (− 0.11, − 0.02) | − 2.92 | 0.02 | 0.004** | ||||||
| Pathways | − 0.05 | (− 0.06, 0.04) | − 0.47 | 0.03 | 0.643 | ||||||
| RD | 0.15 | (− 0.01, 0.07) | 1.70 | 0.02 | 0.091 | ||||||
| Agency X RD | − 0.24 | (− 0.02, − 0.01) | − 2.32 | 0.01 | 0.022* | ||||||
| Pathways X RD | 0.14 | (− 0.01, 0.02) | 1.35 | 0.01 | 0.178 |
Note. N = 122; *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 99.8%, (1-β err prob = 0.998) indicating that this study had an adequate sample size