Skip to main content

Table 5 Model 2 Path analysis

From: Mediators of screening uptake in a colorectal cancer screening intervention among Hispanics

  Coefficient (SE)a p-value R2
Benefit    0.105
 Intervention-education 2.69 (0.377) <.001  
Barrier    0.071
 Intervention-education 1.995 (0.820) 0.015  
 Doctor recommended CRC-yes −1.956 (1.008) 0.052  
 Health status-excellent/good/fair −1.956 (0.728) 0.007  
 Heard of CRC-yes −3.410 (0.775) <.001  
Fatalism    0.105
 Intervention-education −1.789 (0.300) <.001  
 Age-years 0.078 (0.029) 0.007  
 Education - Diploma −1.490 (0.419) <.001  
 Heard of CRC-yes −0.881 (0.305) 0.004  
Knowledge    0.035
 Intervention-education 0.442 (0.091) <.001  
Self-efficacy    0.351
 Intervention-education 11.410 (0.877) <.001  
 Doctor recommended CRC-yes 2.907 (0.852) 0.001  
Susceptibility    0.047
 Health status-excellent/good/fair −0.467 (0.135) 0.001  
 Family history of cancer-yes 1.128 (0.431) 0.009  
 Intervention-education 0.253 (0.146) 0.082  
Screening uptake    0.616
 Intervention-education 2.153 (0.174) <.001  
 Fatalism −0.040 (0.016) 0.012  
 Knowledge −0.120 (0.055) 0.030  
 Self-efficacy 0.024 (0.008) 0.003  
Model fit criteria N = 699
  RMSEA = 0.014 (p = 1)
  CFI = 0.994
  TLI = 0.988
  1. Model 2: Path analysis with individual psychosocial scores
  2. CRC Colorectal Cancer, SE Standard Error, OR Odds Ratio, R2 Coefficient of Determination, RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, CFI Comparative Fit Index, TLI Tucker-Lewis Index
  3. aUnstandardized regression coefficient