Table 4

Regression models predicting Low Fat Vegetable consumption

Step One (Personal characteristics)
 Step Two (Step 1 + nearest environmental variables)
 Step Three (Step 1 + psychosocial variables)
 Step Five (Step 1 + nearest environmental & psychosocial variables)
Variable
 Coeff
 Z
 P
 Coeff
 Z
 P
 Std.
 Z
 P
 Coeff
 Z
 P
BMI %tile
 0.003
 0.73
 0.464
 0.003
 0.77
 0.441
 0.003
 0.81
 0.418
 0.003
 0.85
 0.394
Age
 0.070
 0.56
 0.573
 0.069
 0.57
 0.568
 0.029
 0.26
 0.797
 0.030
 0.27
 0.786
PG (ref GED)
 0.593
 0.97
 0.330
 0.900
 1.48
 0.139
 0.423
 0.76
 0.444
 0.635
 1.13
 0.257
College (ref GED)
 0.042
 0.07
 0.946
 0.348
 0.57
 0.569
 -0.084
 -0.15
 0.880
 0.129
 0.23
 0.819
Tech College (ref GED)
 0.136
 0.21
 0.834
 0.214
 0.34
 0.737
 0.069
 0.12
 0.907
 0.130
 0.22
 0.824
Ethnicity (ref Anglo)
 0.338
 1.09
 0.276
 0.205
 0.67
 0.506
 0.211
 0.75
 0.453
 0.131
 0.47
 0.641
Social Desirability
 0.009
 0.45
 0.656
 -0.002
 -0.10
 0.923
 0.006
 0.31
 0.753
 -0.001
 -0.04
 0.964
Distance to Small Food Store
 -
 -
 -
 0.001
 2.74
 0.006
 -
 -
 -
 0.000
 1.87
 0.060
Low Fat Veg Preferences
 -
 -
 -
 -
 -
 -
 0.057
 3.04
 0.002
 0.050
 2.70
 0.007
Low Fat Veg Home Availability
 -
 -
 -
 -
 -
 -
 0.181
 4.58
 < 0.001
 0.177
 4.48
 < 0.001
Within Troop R2
 0.0100
 0.0447
 0.1888
 0.2130
Between Troop R2
 0.1193
 0.3366
 0.5985
 0.6124
Overall R2
 0.0338
 0.0741
 0.2190
 0.2348

Step Four: Distance to the nearest Small Food Store (SFS) was associated with low fat vegetable preferences (z = 2.32, p < 0.020) but not low fat vegetable home availability (z = 0.47, p = 0.638)

Sobel test indicated that low fat vegetable preferences partially mediated (26%) the relationship between distance to nearest Small Food Store (SFS) and low fat vegetable intake (z = 2.13, p = 0.032)

Jago et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2007 4:35   doi:10.1186/1479-5868-4-35

Open Data