This study evaluated the prevalence of BDD and its association with body features among 437 female students at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Regarding sociodemographic characteristics, the students had an average age of 22.16 ± 3.2 years (range: 18–30 years, N = 437), weight of 59.05 ± 16.7 kg (range: 30.00–157.00 kg, N = 433), height of 158.08 ± 5.9 cm (range: 11.72–69.78 cm, N = 436), and body mass index (BMI) of 23.59 ± 6.3 (range: 11.72–69.78, N = 433), as shown in Table 1. Notably, most students were single (89.5%, n = 391) or Saudi nationals (94.5%, n = 413). Approximately 50% of the students had a 4.5–5 academic grade point average (GPA) (47.4%, n = 207) and normal BMI (49.2%, n = 213). Approximately one-third were aged between 18 and 20 years (37.3%, n = 163). Regarding the current affiliated colleges, the students were mainly in the preparatory year (12.4%, n = 54), College of Arts and Humanities (13.3%, n = 58), and Faculty of Science (14.6%, n = 64).
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants (N = 437).
|
Demographics
|
N
|
Min
|
Max
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Age
|
437
|
18
|
30
|
22.16
|
3.2
|
Weight
|
433
|
30.00
|
157.00
|
59.05
|
16.7
|
Height
|
436
|
140.00
|
175.00
|
158.08
|
5.9
|
BMI
|
433
|
11.72
|
69.78
|
23.59
|
6.3
|
|
Count
|
%
|
Total
|
437
|
100.0
|
Age
|
18-20
|
163
|
37.3
|
21-23
|
165
|
37.8
|
24-26
|
55
|
12.6
|
27-30
|
54
|
12.4
|
Marital status
|
Single
|
391
|
89.5
|
Married
|
35
|
8.0
|
Divorced
|
11
|
2.5
|
Nationality
|
Saudi
|
413
|
94.5
|
Non-Saudi
|
24
|
5.5
|
Academic GPA
|
4.5 - 5
|
207
|
47.4
|
4 - 4.5
|
99
|
22.7
|
3.5 - 4
|
87
|
19.9
|
<3
|
44
|
10.1
|
BMI
|
Underweight
|
85
|
19.6
|
Normal
|
213
|
49.2
|
Overweight
|
76
|
17.6
|
Obese
|
59
|
13.6
|
Missing
|
4
|
|
Total
|
437
|
100.0
|
What is your current college?
|
Preparatory year
|
54
|
12.4
|
College of Arts and Humanities
|
58
|
13.3
|
Faculty of Science
|
64
|
14.6
|
College of Engineering
|
3
|
0.7
|
Faculty of Medicine
|
28
|
6.4
|
College of Applied Medical Sciences
|
6
|
1.4
|
College of Marine Sciences
|
2
|
0.5
|
Applied College
|
14
|
3.2
|
Faculty of Dentistry
|
5
|
1.1
|
College of Pharmacy
|
3
|
0.7
|
Faculty of Tourism
|
10
|
2.3
|
College of Human Sciences and Designs
|
18
|
4.1
|
College of Educational Graduate Studies
|
11
|
2.5
|
College of Computers and Information Technology
|
33
|
7.6
|
College of Communication and Media
|
30
|
6.9
|
College of Economics and Administration
|
41
|
9.4
|
College of Nursing
|
8
|
1.8
|
Faculty of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences
|
2
|
0.5
|
Faculty of Law
|
32
|
7.3
|
Faculty of Medicine in Rabigh
|
2
|
0.5
|
College of Computers and Information Technology in Rabigh
|
2
|
0.5
|
College of Business in Rabigh
|
11
|
2.5
|
Table 2 shows the physical characteristics of concerns among the participants (N = 437), with most worried about their body parts/flaws (80.5%, n = 352). The body features of major concern included skin (32.3%, n = 141), obesity (23.6%, n = 103), teeth (21.5%, n = 94), and hair (21.3%, n = 93).
Table 2. Physical features of concern among the participants (N = 437).
|
Variables
|
Count
|
%
|
Total
|
437
|
100.0
|
Are there any body parts/flaws that you are worried about?
|
Yes
|
352
|
80.5
|
No
|
85
|
19.5
|
Which aspect/feature:
|
Weight
|
64
|
14.6
|
Body
|
71
|
16.2
|
Hair
|
93
|
21.3
|
Skin
|
141
|
32.3
|
Face
|
21
|
4.8
|
Teeth
|
94
|
21.5
|
Nose
|
59
|
13.5
|
Obesity
|
103
|
23.6
|
Epidermis
|
33
|
7.6
|
Thin
|
23
|
5.3
|
Fat
|
5
|
1.1
|
Eyes
|
5
|
1.1
|
Slim
|
3
|
0.7
|
Height
|
8
|
1.8
|
Lips
|
5
|
1.1
|
None
|
50
|
11.4
|
The frequency of BDD symptoms among the participants was measured. Notably, most students occasionally had the habit of compulsive mirror checking or glancing at their image on reflective surfaces (such as windows and doors) (55.1%, n = 241). Approximately 50% of the students also occasionally (a) measured their physical “defect” against the status of people around them (39.6%, n = 173) and (b) compared themselves with people in magazines or on television in terms of their physical “defect” (39.6%, n = 173). Furthermore, approximately 50% of the students reported that the concerns about their physical “defects” never made them avoid doing certain things (such as looking into a mirror, getting photographed, and avoiding social gatherings) (46.0%, n = 201). The distribution of the frequency of BDD symptoms among students is shown in Figure 1.
Furthermore, our results revealed that most students were never diagnosed with BDD symptoms (92.0%, n = 402). The level of social interaction anxiety among the students was analyzed, and most patients slightly or did not experience many of the SIAS items, including (a) being nervous when speaking with someone in authority (52.4%, n = 229), (b) having difficulty making eye contact with others (59.5%, n = 260), (c) finding it difficult to mix comfortably with the people they work with (53.1%, n = 232), (d) being tensed up if they meet an acquaintance in the street (61.1%, n = 267), (e) not being uncomfortable when mixing socially (55.0%, n = 240), (f) feeling tensed if alone with just one other person (55.9%, n = 244), (g) feeling at ease meeting people at parties (50.1%, n = 219), (h) having difficulty talking with other people (60.0%, n = 262), (i) finding it easy to think of things to talk about (55.0%, n = 240), (j) finding it difficult to disagree with another’s perspective (61.1%, n = 267), (k) feeling the urge to say something embarrassing when talking (53.5%, n = 234), (l) worrying about being ignored when mixing in a group of people (48.3%, n = 211), (m) feeling tensed mixing in a group (53.7%, n = 235), and (n) being unsure whether to greet someone they know only slightly (54.9%, n = 240). Regarding social interaction anxiety, the highest mean score of 2.46 ± 1.2 (range 0–4, N = 437) was observed for the “finding it easy to think of things to talk about (reversed)” item, whereas the lowest mean score of 1.30 ± 1.2 (range: 0–4, N = 437) was observed for the “finding it difficult to disagree with another’s perspective” item. The overall mean social interaction anxiety scores and scales are presented in Table 3. The results showed a mean value of 33.71 ± 18.5 (range: 0–73, N+ 437) for the SIAS in <50% of students. Furthermore, the results revealed that most students had no social anxiety (53.5%, n = 234).
Table 3. Overall mean score and scale of social interaction anxiety among the participants (N = 437).
|
Variables
|
N
|
Min
|
Max
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
|
437
|
0
|
73
|
33.71
|
18.5
|
|
Count
|
%
|
Total
|
437
|
100.0
|
Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
|
Without Social Anxiety
|
234
|
53.5
|
With Social Anxiety
|
203
|
46.5
|
The reliability statistics showed a favorable Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.948 (N = 19) for the SIAS, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Reliability statistics of the social interaction anxiety scale.
|
Reliability Statistics
|
Cronbach's Alpha
|
N of Items
|
Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
|
0.948
|
19
|
Notably, the association between the SIAS and participants’ sociodemographic characteristics was assessed (Table 5). A significant association was observed between the SIAS and age (p < 0.001), marital status (p = 0.046), and academic GPA (p = 0.004). Notably, the proportion of students without social anxiety was significantly higher than that of those with social anxiety, regardless of age or marital status. In addition, the number of students with academic GPA ranging from four to five (53.5–61.4%) who had no social anxiety was significantly higher than that of those with social anxiety (38.6–46.5%). Notably, the proportion of students with an academic GPA of ≤4 who had social anxiety (57.5–61.4%) was significantly higher than that of those without social anxiety (38.6–42.5%).
Table 5. Association between the social interaction anxiety scale and sociodemographic characteristics of the participants (N = 437).
|
Demographics
|
Total
|
Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
|
p-value
|
Without Social Anxiety
|
With Social Anxiety
|
Total
|
437
|
234(53.5%)
|
203(46.5%)
|
-
|
Age
|
18-20
|
163
|
76(46.6%)
|
87(53.4%)
|
<0.001a
|
21-23
|
165
|
86(52.1%)
|
79(47.9%)
|
24-26
|
55
|
29(52.7%)
|
26(47.3%)
|
27-30
|
54
|
43(79.6%)
|
11(20.4%)
|
Marital status
|
Single
|
391
|
202(51.7%)
|
189(48.3%)
|
0.046a
|
Married
|
35
|
23(65.7%)
|
12(34.3%)
|
Divorced
|
11
|
9(81.8%)
|
2(18.2%)
|
Nationality
|
Saudi
|
413
|
219(53.0%)
|
194(47.0%)
|
0.366
|
Non-Saudi
|
24
|
15(62.5%)
|
9(37.5%)
|
Academic GPA
|
4.5 - 5
|
207
|
127(61.4%)
|
80(38.6%)
|
0.004a
|
4 - 4.5
|
99
|
53(53.5%)
|
46(46.5%)
|
3.5 - 4
|
87
|
37(42.5%)
|
50(57.5%)
|
<3
|
44
|
17(38.6%)
|
27(61.4%)
|
BMI
|
Underweight
|
85
|
42(49.4%)
|
43(50.6%)
|
0.098
|
Normal
|
213
|
123(57.7%)
|
90(42.3%)
|
Overweight
|
76
|
43(56.6%)
|
33(43.4%)
|
Obese
|
59
|
24(40.7%)
|
35(59.3%)
|
a-significant using Chi-Square Test at <0.05 level.
|
Table 6 shows the association between the SIAS and physical flaws and diagnoses of the participants. The results revealed a significant association between the SIAS and insecurity about body features in students (P < 0.001). Notably, the proportion of students without any concern about their body parts who had no social anxiety (74.1%, n = 63) was significantly higher than that of those with social anxiety (25.9%).
Table 6. Association between the social interaction anxiety scale and physical flaws and diagnoses of the participants (N = 437).
|
Variables
|
Total
|
Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
|
p-value
|
Without Social Anxiety
|
With Social Anxiety
|
Total
|
437
|
234(53.5%)
|
203(46.5%)
|
-
|
Are there any body parts/flaws that you are worried about?
|
Yes
|
352
|
171(48.6%)
|
181(51.4%)
|
<0.001a
|
No
|
85
|
63(74.1%)
|
22(25.9%)
|
Have you been diagnosed with anorexia nervosa or bulimia?
|
Yes
|
35
|
15(42.9%)
|
20(57.1%)
|
0.186
|
No
|
402
|
219(54.5%)
|
183(45.5%)
|
a-significant using Chi-Square Test at <0.05 level.
|
The association between the SIAS and BDD symptoms in participants was also determined (Table 7). The results showed a significant association between the SIAS and all reported BDD symptoms (p < 0.001) according to the chi-square test analysis at p < 0.05. Notably, a significantly higher number of those with social anxiety (61.7 – 80.2%) extremely/very often experienced BDD symptoms than those without social anxiety (19.8–38.3%).
Table 7. Association between the social interaction anxiety scale and symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder in the participants (N = 437).
|
Body dysmorphic disorder symptomology
|
Total
|
Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
|
p-value
|
Without Social Anxiety
|
With Social Anxiety
|
Total
|
437
|
234(53.5%)
|
203(46.5%)
|
-
|
Do you have a habit of compulsive mirror checking or glancing at your image in reflective surfaces?
|
Never
|
117
|
73(62.4%)
|
44(37.6%)
|
<0.001a
|
Occasionally/moderately often
|
241
|
134(55.6%)
|
107(44.4%)
|
Very/Extremely often
|
79
|
27(34.2%)
|
52(65.8%)
|
Do you compulsively touch your physical “defect”?
|
Never
|
201
|
135(67.2%)
|
66(32.8%)
|
<0.001a
|
Occasionally/moderately often
|
191
|
89(46.6%)
|
102(53.4%)
|
Very/Extremely often
|
45
|
10(22.2%)
|
35(77.8%)
|
Have you tried to conceal/hide your physical “defect”?
|
Never
|
135
|
84(62.2%)
|
51(37.8%)
|
<0.001a
|
Occasionally/moderately often
|
153
|
93(60.8%)
|
60(39.2%)
|
Very/Extremely often
|
149
|
57(38.3%)
|
92(61.7%)
|
Have you ever measured your physical “defect” against the status of people around you?
|
Never
|
105
|
69(65.7%)
|
36(34.3%)
|
<0.001a
|
Occasionally/moderately often
|
173
|
111(64.2%)
|
62(35.8%)
|
Very/Extremely often
|
159
|
54(34.0%)
|
105(66.0%)
|
Have you ever compared yourself with people in magazines or on television in terms of your physical “defect”?
|
Never
|
138
|
88(63.8%)
|
50(36.2%)
|
<0.001a
|
Occasionally/moderately often
|
173
|
104(60.1%)
|
69(39.9%)
|
Very/Extremely often
|
126
|
42(33.3%)
|
84(66.7%)
|
Do these concerns about your physical “defect” make you avoid doing certain things?
|
Never
|
201
|
144(71.6%)
|
57(28.4%)
|
<0.001a
|
Occasionally/moderately often
|
130
|
69(53.1%)
|
61(46.9%)
|
Very/Extremely often
|
106
|
21(19.8%)
|
85(80.2%)
|
a-significant using Chi-Square Test at <0.05 level.
|
Table 8 shows the association between the SIAS and physical features of concern among the students. Significant associations were observed between the SIAS and specific body features of concern, such as body (p = 0.037), hair (p = 0.011), teeth (p = 0.016), nose (p < 0.001), obesity (p = 0.001), and height (p = 0.019). Notably, a significantly higher proportion of students with social anxiety (57.4–87.5%) were concerned about these features than those without social anxiety (12.5–42.6%).
Table 8. Association between the social interaction anxiety scale and physical features of concern among the students (N = 437).
|
Variables
|
Total
|
Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
|
p-value
|
Without Social Anxiety
|
With Social Anxiety
|
Total
|
437
|
234(53.5%)
|
203(46.5%)
|
-
|
Which aspect/feature:
|
Weight
|
64
|
35(54.7%)
|
29(45.3%)
|
0.843
|
Body
|
71
|
30(42.3%)
|
41(57.7%)
|
0.037a
|
Hair
|
93
|
39(41.9%)
|
54(58.1%)
|
0.011a
|
Skin
|
141
|
67(47.5%)
|
74(52.5%)
|
0.081
|
Face
|
21
|
8(38.1%)
|
13(61.9%)
|
0.146
|
Teeth
|
94
|
40(42.6%)
|
54(57.4%)
|
0.016a
|
Nose
|
59
|
16(27.1%)
|
43(72.9%)
|
<0.001a
|
Obesity
|
103
|
41(39.8%)
|
62(60.2%)
|
0.001a
|
Epidermis
|
33
|
20(60.6%)
|
13(39.4%)
|
0.398
|
Thin
|
23
|
10(43.5%)
|
13(56.5%)
|
0.320
|
Fat
|
5
|
3(60.0%)
|
2(40.0%)
|
0.771
|
Eyes
|
5
|
1(20.0%)
|
4(80.0%)
|
0.130
|
Slim
|
3
|
2(66.7%)
|
1(33.3%)
|
0.648
|
Height
|
8
|
1(12.5%)
|
7(87.5%)
|
0.019a
|
Lips
|
5
|
1(20.0%)
|
4(80.0%)
|
0.130
|
a-significant using Chi-Square Test at <0.05 level.
|
Further analysis revealed the sociodemographic and academic predictors of BDD among the participants. Results showed that the age of 18–20 years was the most significant positive predictor of BDD (p = 0.001, B = 1.289, standard error [SE] = 0.384, Exp (B) = 3.629, 95% CI = 1.709–7.707), suggesting that students aged 18–20 years have a 1.289 chance of BDD being triggered. Other positive predictors were the age of 24–26 years (p = 0.006, B = 1.1191, SE = 0.436, Exp (B) = 3.289, 95% CI = 1.400–7.725) and 21–23 years (p = 0.002, B = 1.146, SE = 0.378, Exp (B) = 3.145, 95% CI = 1.499–6.598). In contrast, an academic GPA of 4.5–5 was a significant negative predictor of BDD (p = 0.037, B = -0.735, SE = 0.353, Exp (B) = 0.480, 95% CI = 0.240–0.957), suggesting that students with an academic GPA of 4.5–5 have a 0.735 chance of not exhibiting BDD.
The frequency of behavioral predictors of BDD among the participants was also examined (Table 9). The most significant negative predictors were BDDS6 (Never) (p < 0.001, B = -1.986, SE = 0.325, Exp (B) = 0.137, 95% CI = 0.073–0.260), BDDS6 (occasionally/moderately often) (p < 0.001, B = -1.322, SE = 0.311, Exp (B) = 0.267, 95% CI = 0.145–0.491), BDDS2 (Never) (p = 0.004, B = -1.254, SE = 0.430, Exp (B) = 0.285, 95% CI = 0.123–0.663), and BDDS4 (occasionally/moderately often) (p = 0.009, B = -0.673, SE = 0.259, Exp (B) = 0.510, 95% CI = 0.307–0.846).
Table 9. Frequency of behavioral predictors of body dysmorphic disorder among the participants.
|
Variables in the Equation
|
B
|
SE
|
Exp (B)
|
95% CI for EXP (B)
|
p-value
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
First Stepa
|
BDDS1
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.134
|
BDDS1(Never)
|
-0.699
|
0.359
|
0.497
|
0.246
|
1.004
|
0.051
|
BDDS1(Occasionally/moderately often)
|
-0.517
|
0.310
|
0.596
|
0.325
|
1.095
|
0.096
|
BDDS2
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.033b
|
BDDS2(Never)
|
-1.124
|
0.460
|
0.325
|
0.132
|
0.800
|
0.015b
|
BDDS2(Occasionally/moderately often)
|
-0.696
|
0.440
|
0.499
|
0.210
|
1.181
|
0.114
|
BDDS3
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.736
|
BDDS3(Never)
|
0.121
|
0.348
|
1.129
|
0.571
|
2.231
|
0.728
|
BDDS3(Occasionally/moderately often)
|
-0.108
|
0.291
|
0.898
|
0.508
|
1.587
|
0.711
|
BDDS4
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.152
|
BDDS4(Never)
|
-0.296
|
0.410
|
0.744
|
0.333
|
1.662
|
0.471
|
BDDS4(Occasionally/moderately often)
|
-0.575
|
0.305
|
0.563
|
0.310
|
1.022
|
0.059
|
BDDS5
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.221
|
BDDS5(Never)
|
0.227
|
0.393
|
1.254
|
0.580
|
2.711
|
0.564
|
BDDS5(Occasionally/moderately often)
|
-0.282
|
0.313
|
0.754
|
0.409
|
1.392
|
0.367
|
BDDS6
|
|
|
|
|
|
<0.001b
|
BDDS6(Never)
|
-2.068
|
0.341
|
0.126
|
0.065
|
0.247
|
<0.001b
|
BDDS6(Occasionally/moderately often)
|
-1.364
|
0.321
|
0.256
|
0.136
|
0.479
|
<0.001b
|
Constant
|
2.874
|
0.502
|
17.708
|
|
|
<0.001b
|
Last Stepa
|
BDDS2
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.009b
|
BDDS2(Never)
|
-1.254
|
0.430
|
0.285
|
0.123
|
0.663
|
0.004b
|
BDDS2(Occasionally/moderately often)
|
-0.803
|
0.419
|
0.448
|
0.197
|
1.018
|
0.055
|
BDDS4
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.021b
|
BDDS4(Never)
|
-0.152
|
0.327
|
0.859
|
0.453
|
1.632
|
0.643
|
BDDS4(Occasionally/moderately often)
|
-0.673
|
0.259
|
0.510
|
0.307
|
0.846
|
0.009b
|
BDDS6
|
|
|
|
|
|
<0.001b
|
BDDS6(Never)
|
-1.986
|
0.325
|
0.137
|
0.073
|
0.260
|
<0.001b
|
BDDS6(Occasionally/moderately often)
|
-1.322
|
0.311
|
0.267
|
0.145
|
0.491
|
<0.001b
|
Constant
|
2.421
|
0.442
|
11.259
|
|
|
<0.001b
|
a-Variable(s) entered in step 1: BDDS1 = Do you have a habit of compulsive mirror checking or glancing at your image in reflective surfaces?, BDDS2 = Do you compulsively touch your physical “defect”?, BDDS3 = Have you tried to conceal/hide your physical “defect”?, BDDS4 = Have you ever measured your physical “defect” against the status of people around you?, BDDS5 = Have you ever compared yourself with people in magazines or on television in terms of your physical “defect”?, BDDS6 = Do these concerns about your physical “defect” make you avoid doing certain things?.
b-Significant using Binary Logistic Regression Model with Backward Conditional Elimination, with Enter Criteria of 0.05 and Elimination of 0.10.
|
Finally, the physical feature predictors of BDD among participants were determined (Table 10). Results showed that the nose was the most significant positive body feature predictor of BDD (p = 0.001, B = 1.094, SE = 0.319, Exp (B) = 2.987, 95% CI = 1.597–5.586), suggesting that students insecure about their noses have a 1.094 chance of BDD being triggered. Another positive predictor was obesity (p = 0.030, B = 0.526, SE = 0.242, Exp (B) = 1.691, 95% CI = 1.052–2.718).
Table 10. Physical feature predictors of body dysmorphic disorders among the participants.
|
Variables in the Equation
|
B
|
SE
|
Exp(B)
|
95% CI for EXP(B)
|
p-value
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
First Stepa
|
Are there any body parts/flaws that you are worried about?(Yes)
|
0.654
|
0.288
|
1.923
|
1.093
|
3.382
|
0.023b
|
Which aspect/feature
|
Body(Yes)
|
0.470
|
0.281
|
1.600
|
0.922
|
2.777
|
0.094
|
Hair(Yes)
|
0.417
|
0.251
|
1.518
|
0.928
|
2.483
|
0.096
|
Teeth(Yes)
|
0.247
|
0.255
|
1.281
|
0.777
|
2.111
|
0.332
|
Nose(Yes)
|
1.052
|
0.323
|
2.862
|
1.520
|
5.390
|
0.001b
|
Obesity(Yes)
|
0.576
|
0.246
|
1.780
|
1.099
|
2.883
|
0.019b
|
Height(Yes)
|
2.083
|
1.091
|
8.026
|
0.946
|
68.056
|
0.056
|
Constant
|
-1.198
|
0.254
|
0.302
|
|
|
<0.001b
|
Last Stepa
|
Are there any body parts/flaws that you are worried about?(Yes)
|
0.774
|
0.280
|
2.167
|
1.251
|
3.756
|
0.006b
|
Which aspect/feature
|
Hair(Yes)
|
0.437
|
0.249
|
1.549
|
0.951
|
2.521
|
0.078
|
Nose(Yes)
|
1.094
|
0.319
|
2.987
|
1.597
|
5.586
|
0.001b
|
Obesity(Yes)
|
0.526
|
0.242
|
1.691
|
1.052
|
2.718
|
0.030b
|
Height(Yes)
|
2.089
|
1.086
|
8.077
|
0.961
|
67.862
|
0.054
|
Constant
|
-1.165
|
0.253
|
0.312
|
|
|
<0.001b
|
a-Variable(s) entered in step 1: Are there any body parts/flaws that you are worried about? (Body, Hair, Teeth, Nose, Obesity, or Height).
b-Significant using Binary Logistic Regression Model with Backward Conditional Elimination, with Enter Criteria of 0.05 and Elimination of 0.10.
|