Skip to main content

Table 3 Main factors contributing to mode of communication among the entire sample (N = 1210): Results of logistic multi-nominal regressions

From: Associations between ethnicity, place of residence, hearing status of family and habilitation of children with hearing impairment

Dependent variable: Combined communication vs. oral communication Manual communication vs. oral communication
Independent variables: B Odds ratio CI 95% B Odds ratio CI 95%
Gender (vs. male):
 Female 0.01- 0.99 0.74–1.34 *0.41-* 0.67 0.47–0.93
Age (vs. 18–24):
 25–30 **0.42- 0.66 0.48–0.89 0.03 1.04 0.73–1.47
Ethnicity (vs. general):
 Ultra-Orthodox **1.80-* 0.17 0.08–0.33 **2.62-* 0.07 0.02–0.32
 Arab **0.72* 2.04 1.40–2.99 **1.42* 4.13 2.79–6.13
District (vs. center):
 Periphery 0.07 1.08 0.74–1.56 **0.70* 2.01 1.36–2.96
Assistive device (vs. no device):
 CI **1.33-* 0.26 0.13–0.54 **3.41-* 0.03 0.02–0.07
 Hearing aid **1.01- 0.36 0.18–0.72 **2.73-* 0.07 0.04–0.12
First degree relatives with HL (vs. No):
 Yes **0.49 1.63 1.18–2.24 **0.74* 2.08 1.44–3.02
 Pseudo R Square:  
 Cox and Snell 0.370
 Nagelkerke 0.417
 McFadden 0.211
  1. p < .001*** p < .01** p < .05*