Skip to main content

Table 2 Fixed and random parameters of the three-level life satisfaction model

From: The role of community social capital in the relationship between socioeconomic status and adolescent life satisfaction: mediating or moderating? Evidence from Czech data

 

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

 

B

(S.E.)

B

(S.E.)

B

(S.E.)

B

(S.E.)

Fixed effects

 Constant

7.499

(0.036)***

7.900

(0.064)***

7.799

(0.063)***

7.725

(0.060)***

Individual-level

 Socio-demographics

  Female

  

−0.201

(0.056)**

−0.092

(0.054)n.s.

−0.073

(0.053)n.s.

  Age (ref: 11)

  13

  

−0.312

(0.079)**

−0.295

(0.077)**

−0.245

(0.073)**

  15

  

−0.548

(0.078)**

−0.439

(0.076)**

−0.304

(0.074)**

 Socioeconomics

  Family affluence

    

0.096

(0.016)**

0.077

(0.016)**

  Perceived wealth

    

0.538

(0.037)**

0.446

(0.036)**

 Social capital

  Structural social capital

      

0.033

(0.021)n.s.

  Cognitive social capital

      

0.689

(0.041)**

Class-level

 -

        

School-level

 -

        

Random effects

 Individual-level variance

3.253

(0.072)***

3.250

(0.073)***

3.002

(0.067)***

2.813

(0.064)***

 Class-level variance

0.124

(0.028)**

0.058

(0.028)*

0.057

(0.026)*

0.047

(0.024)*

 School-level variance

0.000

(0.000)n.s.

0.009

(0.018)n.s.

0.011

(0.017)n.s.

0.005

(0.015)n.s.

 Log likelihood

17281.1

 

17156.0

 

16611.4

 

16112.9

 

 Δ Log likelihood (Δ df)

  

125.1 (3)

544.6 (2)

489.5 (2)

 p

  

< .001

 

< .001

 

< .001

 
  1. Figures in parentheses represent standard errors
  2. n.s. not significant
  3. *p < 0,05, **p < 0,01, ***p < 0,001