Skip to main content

Table 4 Series of regression models explaining/predicting ‘violence perpetration’

From: Family violence in a sample of treatment-seeking gamblers: the effect of having dependent children

Covariates from individual block sub-models Covariate category Any violence perpetration %
For covariate category
Model 1
(“Children” covariate only)
n = 164
Model 2
(+ Socio-demographics)
n = 162
Model 3
(+ Socio-demographics
+ Psycho-social factors)
n = 155
Model 4
(+ Socio-demographics + Psycho-social factors + Gambling)
n = 155
Odds ratio
(95% CI)
p-value Odds ratio
(95% CI)
p-value Odds ratio
(95% CI)
p-value Odds ratio
(95% CI)
p-value
Children aged < 18 years usually living in household by Gender of Gambler Male, no children (n = 65) 30.77 1 (reference) 0.01 1 (reference) 0.03 1 (reference) 0.26 1 (reference) 0.12
Female, no children (n = 39) 43.59 1.74 (0.76–3.96) 1.58 (0.66–3.79) 1.24 (0.40–3.86) 1.35 (0.41–4.48)
Female, with children (n = 31) 67.74 4.72 (1.89–11.84) 4.20 (1.59–11.07) 3.20 (0.99–10.39) 4.36 (1.28–14.87)
Male, with children (n = 29) 44.83 1.83 (0.74–4.50) 2.47 (0.93–6.52) 1.76 (0.51–6.09) 1.77 (0.49–6.46)
Socio-demographics (block 1)
 Asian No (n = 133) 49.62    1 (reference) 0.02 1 (reference) 0.001 1 (reference) 0.001
Yes (n = 29) 17.24 0.28 (0.096–0.81) 0.12 (0.03–0.42) 0.12 (0.03–0.44)
 Maori No (n = 131) 37.40    1 (reference) 0.01     
Yes (n = 31) 70.97 3.30 (1.33–8.16) (Not significant here) (Not significant here)
Psycho-social factors (block 2)
 Aggression questionnaire— Anger subscale
(> 3.5, <=6 vs <=3.5)
≤ 3.5 (n = 41) 17.07      1 (reference) 0.001 1 (reference) 0.002
>3.5, ≤ 6 (n = 44) 40.91 2.84 (0.81–9.96) 2.40 (0.64–8.92)
> 6, ≤ 10 (n = 47) 51.06 8.85 (2.29–34.26) 7.54 (1.86–30.59)
> 10 (n = 32) 68.75 20.50 (4.32–97.24) 20.69 (4.11–104.01)
 Difficulties in emotion regulation—Strategies ≤ 10 (n = 46) 28.26      1 (reference) 0.002 1 (reference) 0.003
> 10, ≤ 15 (n = 38) 60.53 3.76 (1.11–12.76) 3.30 (0.93–11.70)
> 15, ≤ 22 (n = 44) 29.55 0.30 (0.09–1.05) 0.25 (0.07–0.93)
> 22 (n = 36) 61.11 1.43 (0.37–5.55) 1.28 (0.32–5.22)
 Drugs issue in family/whanau in last 12 months No (n = 137) 37.96      1 (reference) 0.02 1 (reference) 0.03
Yes (n = 23) 69.57 4.53 (1.27–16.24) 4.58 (1.20–17.44)
 Interpersonal Support Evaluation List—Tangible subscale ≥ 10, < 12 (n = 32) 53.13      1 (reference) 0.01 1 (reference) 0.02
< 7 (n = 33) 54.55 0.53 (0.13–2.14) 0.66 (0.16–2.81)
≥ 7, < 10 (n = 33) 30.30 0.09 (0.02–0.40) 0.10 (0.02–0.44)
≥ 12 (n = 63) 38.10 0.33 (0.11–1.01) 0.35 (0.11–1.11)
Gambling (block 3)
 Received counselling or medication for gambling in last 12 months No (n = 127) 36.22        1 (reference) 0.03
Yes but not now (n = 21) 66.67 3.81 (1.07–13.59)
Yes currently (n = 16) 68.75 4.61 (0.92–23.10)
Adjusted R-squared    0.09 0.22 0.49 0.53
  1. The gambling “block” model for violence perpetration (which just had covariates “Children aged < 18 years usually living in household by Gender of Gambler”, “Received Counselling or medication for gambling in last 12 months”, and “Pub or club EGMs main type”) had an odds ratio for violence perpetration comparing “Pub or club EGMs is the main type” to “Pub or club EGMs is NOT the main type” of 2.25 (1.09–4.64) with a significant p-value of 0.03. Had we included “Pub or club EGMs main type” in Model 4 for violence perpetration, which takes into account socio-demographic and psychosocial factors, we would have reduced the “Pub or club EGMs main type” odds ratio to an insignificant (with p = 0.9) 1.07 (0.39–2.93); it was therefore not included in Model 4