Skip to main content

Table 4 Regression analyses predicting mothers' a) actual frequency and b) recommended frequency of behaviour for 'Providing breakfast', 'Cooking from Scratch' and 'Having a proper 'sit-down' meal'

From: Maternal feeding behaviour and young children's dietary quality: A cross-sectional study of socially disadvantaged mothers of two-year old children using the Theory of Planned Behaviour

Breakfast 1

B

SE B

Î’

95% CI for B

p =

a) Actual frequency (log)

     

INT

-.04

.01

-.32

-.06 to -.03

.0001

PBC-C

-.11

.02

-.35

-.15 to -.07

.0001

PBC-SE

.14

.03

.36

.09 to .19

.0001

Model Adj R2 = .19, F(3,296) = 23.65, p < 0.0001

b) Recommended frequency

     

INT

.39

.03

.68

.34 to .45

.0001

PBC-C

.12

.07

.09

-.01 to .26

.07

PBC- SE

-.04

.09

-.02

-.21 to .13

.65

Model Adj R2 = .49, F(3,296) = 96.30, p < 0.0001

Cooking from scratch

a) Actual frequency

B

SE B

Î’

95% CI for B

p =

INT

.93

.04

.76

.85 to 1.03

.0001

PBC-C

.02

.09

.01

-.15 to .20

.83

PBC-SE

.27

.08

-.13

.11 to .43

0.001

Model Adj R2 = .66, F(3,296) = 193.63, p < 0.0001

b) Recommended frequency

     

Int

.37

.03

.55

.31 to .43

.0001

PBC-C

-.05

.06

-.04

-.17 to .07

.41

PBC- SE

.30

.06

.27

.31 to .43

.0001

Model Adj R2 = .44, F(3,296) = 78.2, p < 0.0001

Sit down meal

B

SE B

Î’

95% CI for B

p =

a) Actual frequency

     

INT

1.03

.06

.76

.92 to 1.15

.0001

PBC-C

-.05

.16

.02

-.28 to -.18

.64

PBC-SE

.20

.14

.07

.07 to .47

.15

Model Adj R2 = .62, F(3,296) = 161.5, p > 0.0001

b) Recommended frequency

     

Int

.44

.02

.73

.40 to .48

.0001

PBC-C

.01

.04

.01

-.07 to .09

.81

PBC- SE

.27

.05

.20

.17 to .37

.0001

Model Adj R2 = .74, F(3,296) = 283.4, p > 0.0001

  1. 1Transformation (log) reduced overall skewness in the 'breakfast' actual frequency variable, but since the transformed variable remained skewed we also dichotomised this into 2 categories, 'every day' and 'less than every day', and carried out a logistic regression using the same predictors as a check. The model was significant, Chi Square = 45.71, p < 0.0001; Nagelkerke R2 = .22, with all predictors being highly significant using the Wald test (all p < 0.0001).