Table 5

Regression models predicting High 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

Coeff

Z

P

Coeff

Z

P

BMI %tile

0.001

1.03

0.303

0.002

1.25

0.210

0.002

1.57

0.117

0.002

1.83

0.067

Age

0.033

0.93

0.353

0.033

0.96

0.335

0.015

0.44

0.659

0.015

0.45

0.563

PG (ref GED)

-0.108

-0.62

0.536

-0.042

-0.24

0.807

0.012

0.07

0.942

0.089

0.55

0.585

College (ref GED)

-0.038

-0.22

0.826

0.018

0.10

0.917

0.055

0.33

0.740

0.117

0.72

0.473

Tech College (ref GED)

0.066

0.35

0.723

0.116

0.64

0.523

0.108

0.62

0.538

0.164

0.97

0.334

Ethnicity (ref Anglo)

-0.070

-0.79

0.428

-0.119

-1.36

0.173

0.021

0.25

0.805

-0.027

-0.32

0.748

Social Desirability

0.000

0.08

0.937

0.000

0.01

0.995

0.04

0.77

0.439

0.004

0.77

0.443

Distance to Small Food Store

-

-

-

0.003

3.41

0.001

-

-

-

0.003

3.69

< .001

Distance to Fast Food

-

-

-

-0.001

-2.94

0.003

-

-

-

-0.001

-3.21

0.001

High Fat Veg Home Availability

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.165

3.60

< .001

0.169

3.79

< .001

High Fat Veg Preferences

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.174

3.22

0.001

0.174

3.31

0.001

Within Troop R²

0.0246

0.0853

0.1515

0.2255

Between Troop R²

0.0489

0.1372

0.1330

0.1634

Overall R²

0.0368

0.1014

0.1591

0.2253

Step Four:

Distance to the nearest Small Food Store (SFS) was not associated with HFV Preferences (z = -0.22, p = 0.821) or Availability (z = 0.08, p = 0.936).

Distance to the nearest fast food restaurant was not associated with HFV preferences (z = -0.12, p = 0.908) or Availability (z = 0.25, p = 0.803)

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