Skip to main content
. 2022 Jan 5;22:37. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-09092-w

Table 5.

Model 2 Path analysis

Coefficient (SE)a p-value R2
Benefit 0.105
 Intervention-education 2.69 (0.377) <.001
Barrier 0.071
 Intervention-education 1.995 (0.820) 0.015
 Doctor recommended CRC-yes −1.956 (1.008) 0.052
 Health status-excellent/good/fair −1.956 (0.728) 0.007
 Heard of CRC-yes −3.410 (0.775) <.001
Fatalism 0.105
 Intervention-education −1.789 (0.300) <.001
 Age-years 0.078 (0.029) 0.007
 Education - Diploma −1.490 (0.419) <.001
 Heard of CRC-yes −0.881 (0.305) 0.004
Knowledge 0.035
 Intervention-education 0.442 (0.091) <.001
Self-efficacy 0.351
 Intervention-education 11.410 (0.877) <.001
 Doctor recommended CRC-yes 2.907 (0.852) 0.001
Susceptibility 0.047
 Health status-excellent/good/fair −0.467 (0.135) 0.001
 Family history of cancer-yes 1.128 (0.431) 0.009
 Intervention-education 0.253 (0.146) 0.082
Screening uptake 0.616
 Intervention-education 2.153 (0.174) <.001
 Fatalism −0.040 (0.016) 0.012
 Knowledge −0.120 (0.055) 0.030
 Self-efficacy 0.024 (0.008) 0.003
Model fit criteria N = 699
RMSEA = 0.014 (p = 1)
CFI = 0.994
TLI = 0.988

Model 2: Path analysis with individual psychosocial scores

CRC Colorectal Cancer, SE Standard Error, OR Odds Ratio, R2 Coefficient of Determination, RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, CFI Comparative Fit Index, TLI Tucker-Lewis Index

aUnstandardized regression coefficient