Descriptive statistics are reported for main study variables in
Table 1.
| Results | Min | Max |
|---|
| AP | 36.48 ± 12.54 | 12 | 74 |
| AAP | 18.07 ± 11.53 | 0 | 59 |
| PAP | 14.21 ± 4.92 | 1 | 27 |
| Early trauma | 5.550 ± 3.420 | 0 | 17.00 |
| Dissociative experiences | 30.23 ± 16.49 | 36 | 77 |
| Dissociative Amnesia | 1.93 ± 143.46 | 0 | 640 |
| Depersonalization and derealization | 1.23 ± 110.78 | 0 | 600 |
| Imaginative involvement | 3.74 ± 182.24 | 0 | 900 |
| Suicidal ideation | 5.29 ± 6.41 | 0 | 34 |
b Data are presented as Mean ± SD.
aAbbreviations: APA, active addiction potential; PAP, passive addiction potential.
As seen in
Table 1, the mean (SD) scores obtained by the sample (n = 300) on study variables were as follows: active AP, 18.07 (11.53); passive AP, 14.21 (4.92); early trauma, 5.54 (3.40); dissociative experiences, 30.233 (1.649); and suicidal ideation, 5.296 (6.412). To investigate the relationship between A/PAP and early trauma, dissociative experiences, and suicidal ideation in the total scale and sub-scales, a matrix for Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated.
Table 2 presents the bivariate correlation between study variables.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|
| AP | | | | | | | |
| AAP | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PAP | 0.55 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Early trauma | 0.50 | 0.35 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Dissociative experiences | | | | | | | |
| Dissociative Amnesia | 0.30 | 0.34 | 0.27 | - | - | - | - |
| Depersonalization and derealization | 0.34 | 0.36 | 0.29 | 0.68 | - | - | - |
| Imaginative involvement | 0.29 | 0.38 | 0.28 | 0.71 | 0.66 | - | - |
| Suicidal ideation | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.26 | 0.30 | 0.17 | - |
According to
Table 2, all variables have a positive correlation with each other; α coefficients range from 0.2 to 0.71 and all the correlations are significant at P < 0.001. These findings suggest that high scores of suicidal ideation and early trauma had the most correlation with high active AP scores. In the current study, in order to investigate variables relationship, canonical correlation analysis was used. Early trauma, dissociative experiences and suicidal ideation are considered as predictors of PAP and AAP to study the joint multivariate relationship between these two variables class. The results of multivariate test of significance for canonical correlation full model are presented in
Table 3.
| Value | F | DF1 | DF2 | P Value |
|---|
| Pillais | 0.4714 | 18.13 | 10 | 588 | < 0.001 |
| Wilks | 0.5459 | 23.35 | 10 | 586 | < 0.001 |
| Hotellings | 0.7999 | 20.70 | 10 | 584 | < 0.001 |
Wilks lambda (P < 0.001) being statistically significant, explains a relationship between early trauma, dissociative experiences, suicidal ideation and A/PAP (
Table 3). λ is a sign of unexplained variance; consequently 1-λ is the full model effect size in r2 matrix. Accordingly, the effect size of three canonical correlation functions equals 1-0.54 = 0.46. The effect size is the joint variance between 2 classes of variables that the full model can explain; therefore, the obtained model for this study explains 46% of variance between early trauma, dissociative experiences and suicidal ideation and A/PAP.
The number of functions obtained in the canonical analysis is equal to the number of variables in the smallest class (dependent or independent). Having two dependent variables, A/PAP, two functions are acquired (
Table 4).
| Root Number | Eigenvalue | Percent | Cumulative, % | Canonical Correlation | Square Correlation |
|---|
| 1 | 0.758 | 94.7 | 97.7 | 0.656 | 0.431 |
| 2 | 0.041 | 5.24 | 100 | 0.200 | 0.040 |
In canonical correlation analysis, there is no convenient way to test significance level of functions separately. One way to investigate the issue is to consider the amount of variance that explains each function. As shown in
Table 4, canonical correlations square (R
2C) of functions are 0.431 and 0.040, respectively. Regarding findings by Sherry et al. (
35), functions explaining less than 10% variance are laid away and are not interpreted, then only the first function explaining 43% of joint variance is accepted and other functions disregarded.
In addition to the mentioned method, researchers can test the significance level by dimension reduction analysis (
Table 5).
| Roots | Wilks L | F | DF1 | DF2 | P Value |
|---|
| 1-2 | 0.545 | 20.70 | 10 | 586 | < 0.001 |
| 2-2 | 0.959 | 3.08 | 4 | 294 | 0.017 |
Tests of significance results of cumulative effect of functions 1 and 2 are presented in
Table 5, first row. The test checks if the structure of functions is significant or not. As it was mentioned, cumulative effect of functions 1 and 2 (full model) is statistically significant (P < 0.001), but the 2 to 2 cumulative effect is not significant. In other words, only first function explains a significant amount of joint variance between two classes of variables.
Results, so far, indicate that there is a significant relationship between 2 classes of variables and only the first function denotes a significant variance. To find out the role of each variable in the functions, standard and structural coefficients of variables are considered.
Table 6 presents standard coefficients, structural coefficients and square structural coefficient for dependent and independent variables in the first canonical function.
Following Alpert and Peterson, only variables with minimum structural coefficients of 0.3 are interpreted. Therefore, data presented in
Table 6 shows that in the first function, suicidal ideation (structural coefficient [SC] = 0.81), early trauma (SC = 0.77), depersonalization and derealization (SC = 0.59), imaginative involvement (SC = 0.55), and dissociative amnesia (SC = 0.54) have respectively more important roles in linear structure of predictor variables. Regarding dependent variables, AAP (SC = 0.94) and PAP (SC = 0.78) both affect linear structure of dependent variables.
| Standard Coefficient | Structural Coefficient | Square Structural Coefficient |
|---|
| AAP | 0.735 | 0.946 | 0.894 |
| PAP | 0.384 | 0.789 | 0.622 |
| R2C | | 0.43 | |
| Early trauma | 0.442 | 0.770 | 0.592 |
| Dissociative amnesia | 0.035 | 0.548 | 0.300 |
| Depersonalization and derealization | 0.123 | 0.592 | 0.350 |
| Imaginative involvement | 0.222 | 0.550 | 0.302 |
| Suicidal Ideation | 0.548 | 0.818 | 0.669 |
More specifically, active and passive AP are predicted by early trauma, dissociative experiences and suicidal ideation. Also, canonical R square coefficient (R²C) is 43% that determines amount of joint variance between two canonical classes of independent and dependent variables. Furthermore, based on standard coefficients presented in
Table 6, for each one standard deviation increment in active AP, the first canonical function score increases as 0.73, and with a unit increase in standard deviation of passive AP, first function score increases to 0.384. For each unit increase in standard deviation of early trauma, dissociative amnesia, depersonalization and derealization and imaginative involvement, the score of first canonical function increases to 0.44, 0.03, 0.12 and 0.22. Finally, with each unit increase in suicidal ideation standard deviation, canonical function score increases up to 0.54 (
Figure 1).
Presents Conceptual Relationship Between Dependent and Predictor Variables