Interactions among Ecological Factors That Explain the Psychosocial Quality of Life of Children with Complex Needs
Table 4
Regression analysis results.
Variable (range)
Coefficient
95% CI
P
Child Age (1 = junior, 0 = younger)
4.40
7.55
1.25
.007
Child Hyperactivity (7.5 to 8.5)
1.25
1.68
0.83
Child Conduct Disorder (2 to 10)
0.66
1.24
0.08
.026
Hostile Parenting (10 to 18)
0.92
1.29
0.54
Punitive Parenting (10 to 10)
1.10
1.84
0.36
.004
Impact on Family (24 to 21)
0.15
0.03
0.32
.098
PMK Physical Health (2 to 3)
0.68
0.79
2.15
.366
PMK Mental Health (2 to 3)
1.34
2.96
0.28
.106
Social Support (17 to 7)
0.03
0.35
0.42
.862
Coordinated and Comprehensive Care (5 to 2)
2.33
0.62
4.04
.008
Respectful and Supportive Care (5 to 2)
0.94
1.05
2.93
.356
Child Hyperactivity PMK Mental Health
0.42
0.06
0.77
.021
Hostile Parenting Punitive Parenting
0.16
0.30
0.03
.014
Hostile Parenting Impact on Family
0.05
0.02
0.08
.001
Impact on Family PMK Physical Health
0.15
0.02
0.28
.029
Impact on Family Coordinated and Comprehensive Care
0.13
0.04
0.23
.007
PMK Physical Health Coordinated and Comprehensive Care
3.99
5.70
2.29
PMK Physical Health Respectful and Supportive Care
2.91
1.06
4.76
.002
PMK Mental Health Coordinated and Comprehensive Care
1.22
0.20
2.24
.019
Variables were centralized by subtracting their means, so scores showed deviation from the mean. Sample size (31 cases were excluded due to partially/completely missing data). Forward stepwise selection was used to select interaction terms: entry and staying ; P-value less than .05 was considered to be statistically significant. Goodness of fit of the model: -Square = 0.4717.
