Skip to main content

Table 2 Multilevel logistic regression of the association between experience of IPV and women’s status among ever-partnered women in Nigeria

From: Intimate partner violence against women in Nigeria: a multilevel study investigating the effect of women’s status and community norms

Levels and variables   Models
1
Null model
2
Random intercept and fixed slope- Individual variables only
3
Random intercept and fixed slope- Individual and community variables
4
Random intercept and random slope- individual variables only
5
Random intercept and random slope- individual and community variables
6
Cross-level interaction
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL (L1)
 Women status
  Low   1 1 1 1 1
  Middle 1.01 (0.89–1.13) 1.00 (0.89–1.12) 0.88 (0.77–1.02) 0.90 (0.78–1.04) 0.75 (0.51–1.11)
  High 0.94 (0.82–1.07) 0.92 (0.80–1.05) 0.84 (0.72–0.98) 0.85 (0.73–1.00) 0.47 (0.32–0.71)
 Age
  15–24   1 1 1 1 1
  25–34 1.25 (1.12–1.40) 1.26 (1.12–1.41) 1.26 (1.15–1.44) 1.26 (1.15–1.44) 1.26 (1.12–1.42)
  35–44 1.35 (1.19–1.54) 1.36 (1.20–1.55) 1.38 (1.25–1.62) 1.38 (1.26–1.63) 1.38 (1.21–1.58)
  45–49 1.22 (1.02–1.45) 1.22 (1.03–1.46) 1.22 (1.07–1.52) 1.23 (1.08–1.53) 1.23 (1.03–1.47)
 Wealth quintile
  Poorest   1 1 1 1 1
  Poorer 1.25 (1.06–1.47) 1.26 (1.07–1.49) 1.26 (1.06–1.48) 1.27 (1.08–1.50) 1.27 (1.07–1.50)
  Middle 1.39 (1.15–1.69) 1.41 (1.17–1.71) 1.42 (1.17–1.73) 1.43 (1.18–1.74) 1.43 (1.18–1.74)
  Richer 1.36 (1.09–1.69) 1.40 (1.12–1.74) 1.39 (1.12–1.74) 1.42 (1.14–1.77) 1.42 (1.14–1.76)
  Richest 1.18 (0.92–1.51) 1.22 (0.95–1.57) 1.20 (0.94–1.55) 1.23 (0.96–1.59) 1.24 (0.96–1.59)
 Nature of union
  Monogamous   1 1 1 1 1
  Polygamous 1.19 (1.07–1.33) 1.19 (1.07–1.32) 1.19 (1.07–1.32) 1.18 (1.06–1.32) 1.18 (1.06–1.32)
 Place of residence
  Urban   1 1 1 1 1
  Rural 0.98 (0.80–1.21) 0.95 (0.77–1.16) 1.02 (0.83–1.25) 0.97 (0.79–1.19) 0.98 (0.80–1.20)
 Woman’s attitude to IPV
  Does not justify wife-beating   1 1 1 1 1
  Justifies wife-beating 1.32 (1.20–1.45) 1.30 (1.18–1.43) 1.33 (1.21–1.47) 1.31 (1.19–1.44) 1.31 (1.19–1.44)
 Witnessed mother being beaten
  No   1 1 1 1 1
  Yes 2.44 (2.15–2.78) 2.44 (2.15–2.78) 2.48 (2.17–2.82) 2.47 (2.17–2.82) 2.48 (2.17–2.82)
 Partner’s alcohol use
  Does not drink   1 1 1 1 1
  Never gets drunk 2.09 (1.71–2.56) 2.15 (1.76–2.63) 2.15 (1.76–2.64) 2.20 (1.80–2.70) 2.20 (1.79–2.70)
  Gets drunk sometimes 2.42 (2.13–2.75) 2.41 (2.12–2.74) 2.48 (2.17–2.82) 2.46 (2.16–2.81) 2.47 (2.16–2.81)
  Gets drunk often 5.89 (4.63–7.50) 5.89 (4.62–7.49) 6.09 (4.77–7.78) 6.08 (4.76–7.77) 6.09 (4.77–7.78)
 Partner’s controlling behaviour
  None   1 1 1 1 1
  Yes 4.01 (3.61–4.47) 3.83 (3.43–4.26) 4.05 (3.63–4.52) 3.87 (3.47–4.32) 3.87 (3.46–4.32)
 Partner’s education level
  Tertiary   1 1 1 1 1
  Secondary 1.24 (1.08–1.43) 1.24 (1.07–1.42) 1.24 (1.08–1.43) 1.24 (1.07–1.43) 1.24 (1.07–1.43)
  Primary 1.41 (1.19–1.68) 1.41 (1.19–1.68) 1.40 (1.18–1.67) 1.41 (1.18–1.67) 1.41 (1.18–1.67)
  No education 1.19 (0.88–1.60) 1.17 (0.87–1.58) 1.16 (0.86–1.58) 1.15 (0.85–1.56) 1.15 (0.85–1.55)
 Education difference between partners
  Both partners educated equally   1 1 1 1 1
  Partner more educated than woman 1.12 (0.99–1.26) 1.11 (0.98–1.25) 1.11 (0.98–1.25) 1.10 (0.98–1.24) 1.10 (0.97–1.25)
  Woman more educated than partner 1.11 (0.95–1.28) 1.11 (0.95–1.29) 1.11 (0.95–1.29) 1.11 (0.95–1.30) 1.11 (0.95–1.30)
  Both partners are not educated 0.72 (0.54–0.95) 0.72 (0.54–0.95) 0.71 (0.53–0.94) 0.71 (0.54–0.94) 0.71 (0.53–0.94)
 Income difference between partners
  Both partners earn equally   1 1 1 1 1
  Partner earns more than woman 1.24 (0.99–1.54) 1.23 (0.99–1.53) 1.23 (0.98–1.53) 1.22 (0.97–1.52) 1.23 (0.98–1.53)
  Woman earns more than partner 1.69 (1.24–2.31) 1.67 (1.23–2.28) 1.70 (1.24–2.33) 1.68 (1.23–2.30) 1.67 (1.22–2.29)
  Both partners do not earn 1.20 (0.94–1.52) 1.16 (0.91–1.48) 1.16 (0.91–1.49) 1.14 (0.89–1.46) 1.15 (0.90–1.47)
COMMUNITY LEVEL (L2)
 Men’s attitude to IPV
  Does not justify wife-beating    1   1 1
  Justifies wife-beating 2.13 (1.58–2.87) 2.08 (1.54–2.81) 1.66 (1.17–2.35)
 Control over female behaviour
  Low    1   1 1
  Moderate 1.68 (1.34–2.09) 1.66 (1.33–2.07) 1.66 (1.33–2.07)
  High 1.88 (1.49–2.36) 1.82 (1.44–2.30) 1.81 (1.44–2.29)
 Cross-level interaction between women status (L1) and Men’s attitude to IPV (L2)
  Low status X Men’s attitude       1
  Moderate status X Men’s attitude 1.21 (0.82–1.79)
 High status X Men’s attitude 1.89 (1.26–2.83)
 Variance components (SE)
  Intercept (L2) variance 2.04 (0.13) 1.45 (0.10) 1.34 (0.10) 1.17 (0.14) 1.18 (0.14) 1.14 (0.14)
  Slope (L1)1 variance 0.39 (0.13) 0.40 (0.13) 0.39 (0.13)
  Slope (L1)2 variance 0.28 (0.12) 0.29 (0.12) 0.25 (0.10)
  Intercept-slope (L1)1 covariance 0.16 (0.11) 0.06 (0.11) 0.08 (0.11)
  Intercept-slope (L1)2 covariance 0.11 (0.10) .003 (0.10) 0.06 (0.10)
  Slope (L1)1-slope (L1)2 covariance 0.28 (0.10) 0.30 (0.10) 0.28 (0.10)
 General contextual effects
  ICC (%) 38.3 30.6 28.9 26.2 26.4 25.7
  MOR 3.88 3.14 3.00 2.79 2.81 2.76
  PCV (%) 28.9 7.6 12.7 0.85 3.4
 Model Fit Statistics
  Deviance Information Criteria 19,823.92 15,817.98 15,761.46 15,783.44 15,732.48 15,722.33
  Deviance change 4005.94 56.2 −21.98 50.96 10.15
  1. L1: level 1. L2: level 2. ICC intra-class correlation coefficient, MOR median odds ratio, PCV proportional change in the variance, DIC deviance information criterion. These models were adjusted for age, wealth quintile, place of residence, women’s attitude to IPV, woman witnessed parental violence, partner’s alcohol use, partner’s controlling behaviour, partner’s education level, education difference between partners and income difference between partners