Skip to main content

Table 2 Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses

From: The impact of non-response bias due to sampling in public health studies: A comparison of voluntary versus mandatory recruitment in a Dutch national survey on adolescent health

  

Univariate model

 

Multivariable model

n

OR (95% CI)

Wald

OR (95% CI)

Wald

School experiencesa

11,267

.54 (.50–.58)*

324.36

.62 (.57–.67)*

151.51

Subjective healthb

11,248

.80 (.74–.86)*

37.10

.84 (.77–.91)*

16.75

SDQ

11,225

    

 Unlikely (ref)

9987

1.00

14.31

1.00

9.78

 Possible

857

.67 (.54–.83)*

14.02

.68 (.53–.86)*

9.77

 Probable

381

.90 (.68–1.20)

.50

1.00 (.72–1.38)

.00

Tobacco consumptionc

11,242

.37 (.28–.47)*

62.22

.45 (.33–.60)*

30.08

Alcohol consumptiond

10,959

.33 (.30–.37)*

392.98

.32 (.27–.36)*

248.80

Lifetime alcohol consumptione

10,964

.84 (.83–.85)*

488.22

.81 (.80–83)*

388.29

Alcohol in past four weeksf

10,950

.18 (.15–.21)*

466.79

.13 (.11–.16)*

365.73

Sexual intercourseg

10,896

.71 (.64–.78)*

52.12

.76 (.68–.85)*

24.29

  1. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses, separately conducted for each health-related variable versus sampling method (mandatory sample (Twente) = 0; voluntary sample (IJsselland) = 1). All analyses were first conducted without correction for demographic differences between both samples), and then repeated with gender, age, and education level added to the models as covariates
  2. a(1) great fun, (2) fun, (3) neutral, (4) not fun, (5) dreadful
  3. b(1) very good, (2) good, (3) neutral, (4) not good, (5) poor
  4. cDaily smoker: (0) no, (1) yes
  5. dHad ever consumed alcohol: (0) no, (1) yes
  6. eLifetime alcohol consumption: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11–19, 20 > times
  7. fHad alcohol in the past four weeks: (0) no, (1) yes
  8. g(1) never, (2) once, (3) couple of times, (4) regularly
  9. *= p < .01 (two-tailed)