Skip to main content

Table 4 RF and general distress comparisons: age 14 versus age 17

From: Unravelling the complex nature of resilience factors and their changes between early and later adolescence

 CAAge 14Age 17V95% CI*1p*2agexCA*3agexCA p
Friendship support (high)Yes0.090.07102,800− .04 to .08.55− .09.63
No0.230.3055,837− .13 to − .00.08  
Family support (high)Yes− 0.02− 0.07109,330.00 to .12.07− .03.81
No0.170.1464,965− .03 to .09.49  
Family cohesion (high)Yes− 0.10− 0.18110,280.01 to .14.06− .08.63
No0.290.2961,400− .08 to .06.76  
Negative self-esteem (low)Yes0.060.1090,292− .19 to − .01.07− .22.13
No0.290.5541,185− .43 to − .24< .001  
Positive self-esteem (high)Yes− 0.08− 0.14108,460− .00 to .11.09− .07.63
No0.210.2359,923− .09 to .04.49  
Ruminative brooding (low)Yes0.03− 0.07116,300.05 to .16< .01− .03.81
No0.190.1271,074.02 to .14< .05  
Reflective rumination (low)Yes0.10− 0.08130,350.14 to .26< .001.01.96
No0.200.0082,603.14 to .27< .001  
Distress tolerance (high)Yes− 0.060.0281,643− .11 to − .04< .001− .09.63
No0.250.4236,790− .20 to − .13< .001  
Aggression (low)YesLow: 498 (=1)Low: 491 (=1)7138 .591.22.63
High: 133 (=0)High: 140 (=0)
NoLow: 440 (=1)Low: 425 (=1)2438 .18  
High: 59 (=0)High: 74 (=0)
Expressive suppression (low)YesLow: 418 (=1)Low: 396 (=1)9333 .141.01.96
High: 213 (=0)High: 235 (=0)
NoLow: 371 (=1)Low: 355 (=1)4375 .21  
High: 128 (=0)High: 144 (=0)
General distressYes− 0.09− 0.09106,940− .02 to .22.14.27.13
No− 0.40− 0.6879,608.22 to .46< .001  
  1. Note. CA childhood adversity. All RFs are scored in such a way that high values are protective (e.g. high levels of high friendship support or high levels of low negative self-esteem) and low values are harmful (e.g. low levels of high friendship support or low levels of low negative self-esteem). The continuous general distress variable is scored in such a way that the higher the value the higher the level of general distress. *1The confidence interval (CI) for the difference in location estimates, corresponding to the alternative hypothesis. *2Please note the p values are corrected for the false discovery rate, which is why the CIs do not have to contain 0 for the p value to be nonsignificant. *3For linear models the interaction is reported as b value and for binomial logit models as odds ratio