DClinPsy Portfolio Volume 1 of 3 - University of Hertfordshire ...

Step 1 a
AFQY
BIAAQ
Constant
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
.083 .033 6.169 1 .013 1.087 1.018 1.160
-.003 .010 .095 1 .758 .997 .978 1.016
-3.451 2.188 2.488 1 .115 .032
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: AFQY, BIAAQ.
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
In the next step of the analysis, the importance of depression, anxiety and low self esteem
as important predictors of eating disorder risk was evaluated as these factors could be
regarded as potential confounders in relation to inflexibility.
A logistic regression analysis involving these three predictors revealed that only low self
esteem (p < .001) was a significant predictor of ED risk, whereas anxiety and depression
could be removed from the model without loss in predictive power (see Table 32).
Table 32: Results of the logistic regression analysis (2)
Step 1 a
LowSelfEsteem
Anxiety
Depression
Constant
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
.315 .073 18.396 1 .000 1.370 1.187 1.583
.090 .084 1.155 1 .283 1.094 .928 1.290
-.133 .100 1.771 1 .183 .876 .720 1.065
-3.234 .798 16.414 1 .000 .039
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: LowSelfEsteem, Anxiety, Depression.
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
A final model was run using only inflexibility and low self esteem as predictors to
answers the question, whether inflexibility would still make a significant contribution to
the model when controlled for by low self esteem. As the previous models, this model
was also significant, LR = 32.5, df = 2, p < .001, Nagelkerke R-squared = .41. However,
when inflexibility was controlled for by low self esteem it was no longer a significant
predictor of ED risk (see Table 33). By contrast, low self esteem turned out in the end to
be the only significant predictor of ED risk even when controlled for by other predictors
in the model.
198