The phrase "abuse variable" is not correct and does not convey a clear meaning in written English.
It may be intended to refer to a variable that is misused or exploited in a programming or statistical context, but without additional context, it is ambiguous.
Example: "In the analysis, we found that the abuse variable skewed the results significantly."
Alternatives: "misuse variable" or "exploit variable".
Although no significant G × G × E interactions were observed with the two-level child abuse variable, we find a significant G × G × E interaction (co-varying for age and sex) when using the three-level child abuse variable.
This analysis was further limited by a small sample size, prohibiting analysis with a more graded child abuse variable due to very small Ns/cell (see Table IV).
Prevalence of all types of abuse was low in this sample, so positive responses were combined into a single abuse variable in the analysis.
We first created a two-level abuse variable dividing participants into two groups with respect to numbers of types of abuse on which they fell into the moderate-to-severe range: (1) those with no type of abuse in the moderate-to-severe range and (2) those with moderate-to-severe on at least one type of abuse.
We also created a three-level abuse variable: (1) those with no type of abuse in the moderate-to-severe range, (2) those with moderate-to-severe abuse in one type of abuse, and (3) those with moderate-to-severe abuse in two or more types of abuse.
For effects on SCID-based lifetime diagnosis, we used logistic regression in a subsample (N = 236 278) using 5-HTTLPR or CRHR1 rs11402 A-carrier status and the two-level child abuse variable and their interaction terms as predictors, adjusting for age and sex.
Next, we used the identifying demographic information (full names, date and place of birth) to match the sexual abuse variables to the demographic outcome variables in the GBA.
Women suffering from IPV had a significantly higher rate of PTSD symptomatology as compared to control women, whereas childhood abuse variables did not explain PTSD score variance.
Violence, condom use and alcohol abuse variables lacked time frames.
Intimate partner abuse variables are the dichotomous predictors (yes, no).
The abuse variables in NorAQ have previously shown good reliability, validity and specificity [ 29].
