Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of multinomial logistic regression

From: Patterns of control beliefs in chronic fatigue syndrome: results of a population-based survey

   Target Group
Cofactors Omnibus Test CFS vs Well   ISF vs Well  
  χ2 OR (95% CI) p OR (95% CI) p
Control beliefs
 Internal control (high = 1) 5.86 ––   ––  
 Medium Internal control   1.62 (0.71–3.72) .257 0.75 (0.38 – 1.47) .397
 Low Internal control   1.21 (0.49–2.96) .683 0.66 (0.32 – 1.38) .273
 Competence (high = 1) 17.03** ––   ––  
 Medium competence   1.21 (0.51–2.83) .663 1.69 (0.86–3.32) .129
 Low competence   5.91 (1.67–20.96) .006 8.69 (2.83–26.69) <.001
 Powerful others (high = 1) 1.92 ––   ––  
 Medium Powerful others   1.32 (0.54–3.23) .545 1.45 (0.69–3.07) .330
 Low Powerful others   1.76 (0.68–4.56) .247 1.45 (0.65–3.22) .359
 Chance (high = 1) 8.01 ––   ––  
 Medium Chance   1.04 (0.43–2.50) .938 1.77 (0.85–3.68) .127
 Low Chance   2.15 (0.80–5.80) .130 2.76 (1.19–6.40) .018
Personality
 Neuroticism (high = 1) 36.20** ––   ––  
 Medium Neuroticism   0.28 (0.09–0.85) .025 0.32 (0.12–0.88) .028
 Low Neuroticism   0.06 (0.02–0.19) <.001 0.10 (0.03–0.28) <.001
 Extraversion (high = 1) 12.36* ––   ––  
 Medium Extraversion   3.22 (1.39–7.46) .007 2.04 (1.05–3.97) .036
 Low Extraversion   3.42 (1.22–9.61) .019 1.29 (0.56–2.99) .555
 Openness (high = 1) 14.25** ––   ––  
 Medium Openness   0.80 (0.37–1.77) .585 0.75 (0.39–1.47) .403
 Low Openness   0.48 (0.21–1.14) .098 1.34 (0.69–2.62) .392
 Agreeableness (high = 1) 11.89* ––   ––  
 Medium Agreeableness   0.95 (0.43–2.07) .893 1.98 (1.07–3.68) .031
 Low Agreeableness   1.95 (0.75–5.08) .171 3.08 (1.35–7.02) .008
 Conscientiousness (high = 1) 0.85 ––   ––  
 Medium Conscientiousness   0.85 (0.38–1.90) .683 1.04 (0.55–1.96) .904
 Low Conscientiousness   0.90 (0.36–2.26) .820 1.22 (0.56–2.64) .622
Coping
 Confrontive (high = 1) 18.49** ––   ––  
 Medium Confrontive   0.22 (0.09–0.53) .001 0.73 (0.36–1.49) .384
 Low Confrontive   0.19 (0.07–0.52) .001 0.69 (0.30–1.63) .399
 Distancing (high = 1) 3.84     
 Medium Distancing   0.90 (0.40–2.02) .796 0.83 (0.43–1.60) .571
 Low Distancing   0.76 (0.28–2.05) .579 0.48 (0.21–1.08) .075
 Self-Controlling (high = 1) 3.59 ––   ––  
 Medium Self-Controlling   0.50 (0.21–1.21) .125 0.55 (0.26–1.16) .117
 Low Self-Controlling   0.45 (0.15–1.38) .162 0.67 (0.27–1.66) .382
 Seeking Support (high = 1) 1.77 ––   ––  
 Medium Seeking Support   1.36 (0.60–3.12) .462 0.89 (0.45–1.77) .993
 Low Seeking Support   1.25 (0.43–3.57) .684 1.00 (0.43– 2.32) .743
 Responsibility (high = 1) 2.68 ––   ––  
 Medium Responsibility   0.70 (0.30–1.65) .410 1.08 (0.53–2.19) .832
 Low Responsibility   1.00 (0.36–2.82) .998 0.95 (0.41–2.21) .902
 Escape-Avoidance (high = 1) 2.60 ––   ––  
 Medium Escape-Avoidance   0.92 (0.39–2.16) .839 0.79 (0.39–1.61) .517
 Low Escape-Avoidance   1.62 (0.56–4.71) .375 0.86 (0.37–2.01) .721
 Problem Solving (high = 1) 3.07 ––   ––  
 Medium Problem Solving   1.25 (0.56–2.80) .589 1.10 (0.57–2.13) .777
 Low Problem Solving   1.24 (0.45–3.38) .681 0.70 (0.31–1.59) .391
 Reappraisal (high = 1) 5.17 ––   ––  
 Medium Reappraisal   0.65 (0.26–1.62) .357 0.73 (0.35–1.53) .399
 Low Reappraisal   1.11 (0.37–3.38) .849 1.62 (0.67–3.93) .283
  1. Note. Multinomial Logistic Regression.**p<.010, *p<.050 ORs are adjusted for all other variables in the model. Well = reference group; high = reference category; also included in the analysis: age (covariate), sex (male, female), race (Caucasian, Other). If not otherwise specified, variables were divided into tertiles based on their distribution in this sample (low: 0–33%, medium: 34–66%, high: 67–100% of the sample). Model fit χ2 (df = 74, n = 488) = 229.00, p < .001, Deviance χ2 (df = 898, n = 488) = 765.54, p = .999. Omnibus test: dfs for age: 1; sex and race: df = 2, all other variables: df = 4, Pseudo-R 2 (Nagelkerke) = 0.43