Skip to main content

Table 3 Stepwise controlled models of the association between educational track and binge drinking (more than once a month vs. once a month or less)

From: The role of self-control and cognitive functioning in educational inequalities in adolescent smoking and binge drinking

 

Odds ratio’s and 95% confidence intervals

 

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Educational track

 High

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

 Middle

2.03 (0.95–4.36)

1.41 (0.62–3.21)

1.41 (0.59–3.35)

1.50 (0.60–3.72)

 Low

3.25 (1.48–7.17)

2.90 (1.30–6.48)

2.88 (1.09–7.62)

3.25 (1.17–9.02)

Gender

 Male

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

 Female

0.32 (0.17–0.61)

0.33 (0.17–0.63)

0.33 (0.17–0.63)

0.31 (0.16–0.61)

Age

1.18 (0.86–1.63)

1.16 (0.84–1.60)

1.16 (0.84–1.60)

1.11 (0.79–1.56)

Social disadvantage

0.69 (0.52–0.92)

0.72 (0.54–0.96)

0.72 (0.55–0.96)

0.70 (0.52–0.95)

Self-controla

 

0.61 (0.43–0.86)

0.61 (0.43–0.86)

0.59 (0.41–0.84)

Cognitive abilitya

  

0.99 (0.68–1.46)

1.04 (0.70–1.56)

Reaction timeb

   

0.92 (0.64–1.56)

Memory span Forwardsa

   

0.66 (0.46–0.95)

Memory span Backwardsa

   

1.20 (0.85–1.70)

Model fit AIC, p-valuec

240.6, <0.001

234.3, 0.004

236.3, 0.979

235.8, 0.092

  1. ahigher scores are favourable
  2. blower scores are favourable
  3. cModel Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) and p-value of likelihood ratio test comparing model fit with the less complex nested Model, i.e. Model 1 compared with a crude Model, Model 2 compared with Model 1, Model 3 compared with Model 2, and Model 4 compared with Model 3