62
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
1.
World Health Organization. WHO global estimates on prevalence of hearing
loss. World Health Organization; 2012.
2.
American Speech-Languge-Hearing Association. Type, degree, and
configuration of hearing loss. Rockville: American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 2015.
3.
Soetirto I, Hendarmin H, Bashiruddin J. Gangguan pendengaran (tuli). In:
Soepardi EA, Iskandar N, Bashiruddin J, Restuti RD, editors. Buku ajar ilmu
kesehatan telinga hidung tenggorokan kepala dan leher. 7th ed. Jakarta:
Badan Penerbit Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia; 2014. p. 273.
4.
Departemen Kesehatan Republik Indonesia. Hasil survei kesehatan indera
penglihatan dan pendengaran 1993-1996. Jakarta: Departemen Kesehatan
Republik Indonesia; 1998. p. 73.
5.
Campbell TF, Dollaghan C, Rockette HE, Paradise JL, Feldman HM,
Shriberg LD, et al. Risk factors for speech delay of unknown origin in
3-year-old children. Child Dev. 2003; 74(2):346–57.
6.
American Speech-Languge-Hearing Association. Effect of hearing loss on
development. American Speech-Languge-Hearing Association. Rockville:
American Speech-Languge-Hearing Association; 2015.
7.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Executive summary of joint committe on
infant hearing year 2007 position statement: Principles and guidelines for
early hearing detection and intervention programs. Joint Committee on Infant
Hearing; 2007.
8.
Bansal M. Sensorineural hearing loss. In: Diseases of ear, nose, and throat.
1st ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd; 2013. p. 162.
9.
Udji B, Rianto D, Raditya AE, Hernaldo S. The role of cytomegalovirus in
10.
Dewi YA. Karakteristik gangguan pendengaran sensorineural bilateral
kongenital pada anak yang dideteksi dengan pemeriksaan BERA [skripsi].
Bandung: Universitas Padjajaran; 2005.
11.
Rahman A, Muyassaroh. Hubungan antara riwayat prenatal dam perinatal
dengan kejadian SNHL berat-sangat berat pada anak di RSUP Dokter
Kariadi Semarang [skripsi]. Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro; 2010.
12.
Rahman S, Hanifatryevi. Asfiksia perinatal sebagai faktor resiko gangguan
pendengaran pada anak [skripsi]. Padang: Universitas Andalas; 2015.
13.
Aji DS, Widuri A. Hearing disorders on newborn with premature risk factors
at Hospital of PKU Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta [skripsi]. Yogyakarta:
Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta; 2014.
14.
Muyassaroh, Kosim MS, Suprihati. Faktor risiko kejadian kurang
pendengaran tipe sensorik pada bayi baru lahir. Media Med Indones. 2011;
45(3):158–62.
15.
Martina AA, Sutomo R, Arguni E. Association between low birth weight and
speech delay related sensorineural hearing loss: A Study in RSUP dr Sardjito
Yogyakarta from 2009-2013 [skripsi]. Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah
Mada; 2015.
16.
Early Hearing Loss Detection Diagnosis and Intervention (EHDDI)
Program. Risk factors for late onset hearing loss : Extended stay in NICU.
Washington DC: Washington State Department of Health; 2013.
17.
Weichbold V, Nekahm-Heis D, Welzl-Mueller K. Universal newborn
hearing screening and postnatal hearing loss. Am Acad Pediatr. 2006;
117(4):631–6.
18.
Guiding Principles for Infant Hearing Screening in The South East Asia
Region [Internet]. Sound Hearing 2030; 2015 [cited 2015 Dec 30]. Available
from:
http://www.soundhearing2030.org/Guiding-Principles-for-Infant-Hearing-Screening.doc
19.
Winston R, Ditty KM. Newborn hearing screening. In: A resource guide for
early Hearing detection and intervention. Utah: National Center for Hearing
Assessment and Management Utah State University; 2010.
20.
Esteves MCBN, Dell’ Aringa AHB, Arruda GV, Dell’ Aringa AR, Nardi JC.
Brainstem evoked response audiometry in normal hearing subjects. Braz J
Otorhinolaryngol. 2009; 75(3):420–5.
21.
Herwindo B, Rianto BUD, Prasetyo A. Faktor risiko gangguan pendengaran
sensorineural pada anak [skripsi]. Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah Mada;
2015.
22.
World Health Organization. Prevention of blindness and deafness (PBD)
program: Grades of hearing impairment. World Health Organization; 2013.
23.
Mahoney N. Language and linguistics: Speech is physical [Internet]. The
National Science Foundation. [cited 2016 Jan 25]. Available from:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/linguistics/speech.jsp
24.
Shah RK, Lotke M, Windle ML, McClay J, Isaacson GC, Brown O. Hearing
impairment. Medscape Reference; 2011.
25.
Maqbool M. Examination of the ear. In: Textbook of ear, nose, and throat
diseases. 11th ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd;
2007. p. 132
26.
Thirunavukarasu R, Balasubramaniam GK, Kalyanasundaram RB,
Narendran G, Sridhar S. A study of brainstem evoked response audiometry
in high-risk infants and children under 10 years of age. Indian J Otol 2015;
21:134-7
27.
Bhattacharyya N, Talavera F, Gianoli GJ, Meyers AD, Megerian CA.
Audiometry brainstem response audiometry. Medscape References.
[Internet]. 2015 [updated 2015 March 5; cited 2016 June 23]. Available
from: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/836277-overview
28.
Agarwal A, Djelantik B, Garg S, Khurana D. About sound hearing 2030. In:
First world congress on ear and hearing care under the aegis of society for
sound hearing. New Delhi: Sound Hearing 2030; 2015. p. 22.
29.
Mikulec AA. Congenital hearing loss (sensorineural and conductive). In:
Mitchell RB, Pereira KD, editors. Pediatric otolaryngology for the clinician.
1st ed. New York: Humana Press; 2009. p. 250.
National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities; 2004.
31.
McLaughlin MR. Speech and language delay in children. Am Fam
Physician. 2011; 83(10):1183–8.
32.
Hagan JF, Shaw JS, Duncan PM, editors. Bright futures: Guidelines for
health supervision of infants, children, and adolescents. 3rd ed. Elk Grove
Village, IL: The American Academy of Pediatrics; 2008. p. 55.
33.
Suwento R, Zizlavsky S, Hendarmin H. Gangguan pendengaran pada bayi
dan anak. In: Soepardi EA, Iskandar N, Bashiruddin J, Restuti RD, editors.
Buku ajar ilmu kesehatan telinga hidung tenggorokan kepala dan leher. 7th
ed. Jakarta: Badan Penerbit Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia;
2014. p. 273.
34.
Leung AKC, Kao CP. Evaluation and management of the child with speech
delay. Am Fam Physician. 1999 ;59(11):3–9.
35.
Cheeran MC, Lokensgard JR, Schleiss MR. Neuropathogenesis of
congenital cytomegalovirus infection : Disease mechanisms and prospects
for intervention. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009; 22(1):99–126.
36.
Cohen BE, Durstenfeld A, Roehm PC. Viral causes of hearing loss : A
review for hearing health professionals. 2014; 18:1–17.
37.
Schraff SA, Schleiss MR, Brown DK, Meinzen-derr J, Choi KY, Greinwald
JH, et al. Macrophage inflammatory proteins in cytomegalovirus-related
inner ear injury. Am Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2007; 137:612–8.
38.
Goderis J, De Leenheer E, Smets K, Van Hoecke H, Keymeulen A, Dhooge
I. Hearing loss and congenital CMV infection: a systematic review.
Pediatrics. 2014; 134(5):972–82.
39.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention of measles, rubella,
congenital rubella syndrome, and mumps (Summary recommendations of
the advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP)). Center for
Disease Control and Prevention: United State Department of Health and
Human Services; 2013.
40.
Marlow E, Hunt L, Marlow N. Sensorineural hearing loss and prematurity.
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2000; 82:141–4.
41.
Gowen CW. Kedokteran fetal dan neonatal. In: Rundjan L, Roeslani R,
editors. Nelson: Ilmu kesehatan anak esensial. 6th ed. Singapore: Elsevier
Ltd; 2014. p. 878.
42.
Porter ML, Dennis BL. Hyperbilirubinemia in the term newborn. Am Fam
Physician. 2002; 24(4):599–606.
43.
Bailey BJ, Johnson JT, Newlands SD. Sensorineural hearing loss. In: Hurley
R, LaPlante M, Connors M, editors. Head and neck surgery -
Otolaryngology. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.
p. 1299–301.
44.
Mishra S, Agarwal R, Deorari AK, Paul VK. Jaundice in the newborns.
Indian J Pediactrics. 2008; 75:157–63.
45.
Stich-Hennen J, Bargen GA. Risk monitoring for late onset hearing loss. In:
A resource guide for early hearing detection and intervention. Utah: National
Center for Hearing Assessment and Management Utah State University;
2010. p. 193–205.
46.
Antonucci R, Porcella A, Pilloni MD. Perinatal asphyxia in the term
newborn. J Pediatr Neonatal Individ Med. 2014; 3(2):1–14.
47.
Setyarini TK. Pengaruh asfiksia neonatal terhadap terjadinya gangguan
pendengaran sensorineural. Universitas Diponegoro; 2011.
48.
Eras Z, Konukseven O, Aksoy HT, Canpolat FE, Genç A, Sakrucu ED, et al.
Postnatal risk factors associated with hearing loss among high-risk preterm
infants: tertiary center results from Turkey. Eur Arch
Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2014 Jul; 271(6):1485–90.
49.
Hain TC. Post-traumatic hearing loss [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2016 Jan 6].
Available
from:
http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/disorders/post/posttrau hearing.html
50.
Moeller MP, Eiten L, White K, Shisler L. Strategies for educating physicians
about newborn hearing screening. J Acad Rehabil Audiol. 2006; 39:1–21.
51.
Dahlan MS. Menggunakan rumus besar sampel secara benar. In: Susila A,
editor. Besar sampel dan cara pengambilan sampel dalam penelitian
kedokteran dan kesehatan. 2nd ed. Jakarta: Salemba Medica; 2013. p. 35–
80.
52.
Audiology Information Series. Ototoxic medications. Rockville: American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 2015.
53.
World Health Organization. World health assembly global nutrition targets
2025: Low birth weight policy brief. World Health Organization; 2014.
54.
Impey L, Child T. The history and examination in Obstetry. In: Obstetry and
gynaecology. 4th ed. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2012. p. 137–45.
55.
Engdahl B, Eskild A. Birthweight and the risk of childhood sensorineural
hearing loss. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007; 21(6):495-500.
56.
Kramer MS. The epidemiology of adverse pregnancy outcomes: an
overview. Journal of Nutrition 2003; 133 (5 Suppl. 2):1592–96.
57.
Yamamoto AY, Mussi-Pinhata MM, Isaac M de L, et al. Congenital
cytomegalovirus infection as a cause of sensorineural hearing loss in a highly
immune population. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2011; 30(12):1043-1046.
58.
Schacht J, Talaska AE, Rybak LP. Cisplatin and Aminoglycoside
Antibiotics: Hearing Loss and Its Prevention. Anat Rec.
2013;295(11):1837-1850.
59.
Mohammad DNC, Sutomo R, Arguni E.. Association between prematurity
and sensorineural hearing loss among children with speech delay: a study in
rsup dr sardjito from 2009 to 2013 [sikripsi]. Yogyakarta: Universitas
Gadjah Mada; 2015.
60.
Yuliana. The analysis of risk factors of hearing impairment and deafness in
newborn at Wahidin Sudirohusodo Hospital Makassar [skripsi]. Makassar:
Universitas Hasanuddin; 2014.
61.
Fithia N, Sutomo R, Arguni E. Association between birth asphyxia and
speech delayed related to sensorineural hearing loss in children: A study in
RSUP Dr Sardjito Yogyakarta from 2009 to 2013 [skripsi]. Yogyakarta:
Universitas Gadjah Mada; 2015.
Schrott-Fischer A. Does perinatal asphyxia induce apoptosis in the inner ear? Hear
Res. 2009;250(1-2):1-9.
63.
Menkes JH, Sarnat HB, Maria BL. Perinatal Asphyxia and Trauma. In: Child
Neurology. 7th ed. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;
2006:367-432.
64.
Rasyidah, Sutomo R, Arguni E. Association between neonatal jaundice and
sensorineural hearing loss among children with speech delay: A study RSUP
Dr Sardjito from 2009-2013. 2015.
65.
Mishra S, Agarwal R, Deorari AK, Paul VK. Jaundice in Newborns. Indian
J Pediactrics. 2008;75(2):157-163.
66.
Wickremasinghe AC, Risley RJ, Kuzniewicz MW, et al. Risk of
sensorineural hearing loss and bilirubin exchange transfusion thresholds.
Pediatrics. 2015;136(3):505-512.
67.
Bailey BJ, Johnson JT, Newlands SD. Sensorineural Hearing Loss. In:
Hurley R, LaPlante M, Connors M, eds. Head and Neck Surgery -
Otolaryngology. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;
2006:1299-1301.
68
.
Vartiainen E, Karjalainen S, Karja J. Auditory disorders following head
injury in children. Acta Otolaryngol. 2010;99(5-6):529-536.
Lampiran 4. Spreadsheet Data Subjek Penelitian
Nomor
CM
Diagnosis
1. SNHL
2. Normal
Jenis Kelamin
1. Laki-laki
2. Perempuan
Usia
(bulan)
Cara
Persalinan
1. Pervaginam
2. SC
Infeksi
Prenatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Obat
Ototoksik
1. Ya
2. Tidak
BBLR
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Lahir
Prematur
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Asfiksia
Neonatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Ikterus
Neonatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Infeksi
Postnatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Ventilator
Mekanis
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Trauma
Kepala
1. Ya
2. Tidak
C572578
1
2
61
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C463119
1
1
51
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
C430723
1
1
31
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
C575642
1
1
21
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C575838
1
1
59
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
C576584
1
2
64
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
C576993
1
2
33
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
C576736
1
2
10
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
C565226
1
1
64
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
C577868
1
1
40
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
C572683
1
1
38
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
C579262
1
1
35
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C578797
1
1
47
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C579262
1
1
19
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
Nomor
CM
Diagnosis
1. SNHL
2. Normal
Jenis Kelamin
1. Laki-laki
2. Perempuan
Usia
(bulan)
Cara
Persalinan
1. Pervaginam
2. SC
Infeksi
Prenatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Obat
Ototoksik
1. Ya
2. Tidak
BBLR
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Lahir
Prematur
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Asfiksia
Neonatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Ikterus
Neonatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Infeksi
Postnatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Ventilator
Mekanis
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Trauma
Kepala
1. Ya
2. Tidak
C579016
1
2
49
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
C579930
1
1
27
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
C581207
1
2
45
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
C583574
1
1
27
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
C584479
1
1
29
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
C583071
1
2
26
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
C585114
1
2
42
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C588437
1
1
26
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
C585633
1
1
45
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
C587148
1
2
37
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
C587162
1
2
24
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
C586521
1
1
27
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
C579006
1
2
48
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C577964
1
2
51
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C564139
1
2
23
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
C572934
1
1
22
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Nomor
CM
Diagnosis
1. SNHL
2. Normal
Jenis Kelamin
1. Laki-laki
2. Perempuan
Usia
(bulan)
Cara
Persalinan
1. Pervaginam
2. SC
Infeksi
Prenatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Obat
Ototoksik
1. Ya
2. Tidak
BBLR
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Lahir
Prematur
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Asfiksia
Neonatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Ikterus
Neonatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Infeksi
Postnatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Ventilator
Mekanis
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Trauma
Kepala
1. Ya
2. Tidak
C568343
1
1
59
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C519062
2
1
28
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C459433
2
1
26
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
C573891
2
1
45
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
C475044
2
1
22
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C572699
2
1
26
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
C576072
2
2
32
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
C511090
2
2
38
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C574305
2
1
30
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
C567769
2
1
24
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
C561307
2
2
15
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
C578811
2
2
34
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C578142
2
1
9
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
C582608
2
1
27
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C576537
2
2
25
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
C581935
2
2
24
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Nomor
CM
Diagnosis
1. SNHL
2. Normal
Jenis Kelamin
1. Laki-laki
2. Perempuan
Usia
(bulan)
Cara
Persalinan
1. Pervaginam
2. SC
Infeksi
Prenatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Obat
Ototoksik
1. Ya
2. Tidak
BBLR
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Lahir
Prematur
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Asfiksia
Neonatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Ikterus
Neonatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Infeksi
Postnatal
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Ventilator
Mekanis
1. Ya
2. Tidak
Trauma
Kepala
1. Ya
2. Tidak
C583693
2
1
48
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
C570754
2
2
58
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
C569459
2
1
20
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
C584263
2
1
32
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
C585231
2
1
48
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C586323
2
2
26
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C586324
2
2
21
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C577729
2
2
39
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
C578113
2
2
42
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
C562237
2
1
12
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C587077
2
1
77
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
C583465
2
1
10
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
C587967
2
1
48
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
C377502
2
2
48
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C574247
2
2
35
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
C567258
2
2
22
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Lampiran 5. Hasil Analisis SPSS
1. Analisis Subjek Penelitian
1.1. Karakteristik penderita speech delay
1.1.1. Jenis kelamin
Jenis kelamin * Diagnosis Crosstabulation
Diagnosis
Total
SNHL Tidak SNHL
Jenis kelamin Laki-laki Count 18 17 35
Expected Count 17,5 17,5 35,0
% within Jenis kelamin 51,4% 48,6% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 58,1% 54,8% 56,5%
% of Total 29,0% 27,4% 56,5%
Perempuan Count 13 14 27
Expected Count 13,5 13,5 27,0
% within Jenis kelamin 48,1% 51,9% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 41,9% 45,2% 43,5%
% of Total 21,0% 22,6% 43,5%
Total Count 31 31 62
Expected Count 31,0 31,0 62,0
% within Jenis kelamin 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square ,066a 1 ,798 Continuity Correctionb ,000 1 1,000 Likelihood Ratio ,066 1 ,798
Fisher's Exact Test 1,000 ,500
Linear-by-Linear Association ,065 1 ,799
N of Valid Cases 62
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Risk Estimate
Value
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for Jenis kelamin
(Laki-laki / Perempuan) 1,140 ,418 3,114
For cohort Diagnosis =
SNHL 1,068 ,643 1,773
For cohort Diagnosis =
Tidak SNHL ,937 ,569 1,542
N of Valid Cases 62
1.1.2 Usia
Tests of Normality
Diagnosis Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Usia SNHL ,130 31 ,198 ,957 31 ,250
Tidak SNHL ,122 31 ,200* ,940 31 ,080
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance. a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Ranks
Diagnosis N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Usia SNHL 31 35,45 1099,00 Tidak SNHL 31 27,55 854,00 Total 62 Test Statisticsa Usia Mann-Whitney U 358,000 Wilcoxon W 854,000 Z -1,726
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,084
1.2 Karakteristik ibu
1.2.1 Pendidikan terakhir ibu
Pendidikan ibu * Diagnosis Crosstabulation
Diagnosis
Total
SNHL Tidak SNHL
Pendidikan ibu S1/sederajat Count 6 10 16
Expected Count 8,0 8,0 16,0
% within Pendidikan ibu 37,5% 62,5% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 19,4% 32,3% 25,8%
% of Total 9,7% 16,1% 25,8%
D3/sederajat Count 0 4 4
Expected Count 2,0 2,0 4,0
% within Pendidikan ibu 0,0% 100,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 0,0% 12,9% 6,5%
% of Total 0,0% 6,5% 6,5%
SMA/sederajat Count 15 9 24
Expected Count 12,0 12,0 24,0
% within Pendidikan ibu 62,5% 37,5% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 48,4% 29,0% 38,7%
% of Total 24,2% 14,5% 38,7%
SMP/sederajat Count 10 6 16
Expected Count 8,0 8,0 16,0
% within Pendidikan ibu 62,5% 37,5% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 32,3% 19,4% 25,8%
% of Total 16,1% 9,7% 25,8%
SD/sederajat Count 0 2 2
Expected Count 1,0 1,0 2,0
% within Pendidikan ibu 0,0% 100,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 0,0% 6,5% 3,2%
% of Total 0,0% 3,2% 3,2%
Total Count 31 31 62
Expected Count 31,0 31,0 62,0
% within Pendidikan ibu 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Test Statisticsa
Pendidikan ibu
Most Extreme Differences Absolute ,258
Positive ,065
Negative -,258
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 1,016
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,253
a. Grouping Variable: Diagnosis
1.2.1 Pekerjaan ibu
Pekerjaan ibu * Diagnosis Crosstabulation
Diagnosis
Total
SNHL Tidak SNHL
Pekerjaan ibu PNS Count 1 7 8
Expected Count 4,0 4,0 8,0
% within Pekerjaan ibu 12,5% 87,5% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 3,2% 22,6% 12,9%
% of Total 1,6% 11,3% 12,9%
Karyawan swasta Count 3 8 11
Expected Count 5,5 5,5 11,0
% within Pekerjaan ibu 27,3% 72,7% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 9,7% 25,8% 17,7%
% of Total 4,8% 12,9% 17,7%
Wiraswasta Count 3 3 6
Expected Count 3,0 3,0 6,0
% within Pekerjaan ibu 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 9,7% 9,7% 9,7%
% of Total 4,8% 4,8% 9,7%
Buruh Count 2 0 2
Expected Count 1,0 1,0 2,0
% within Pekerjaan ibu 100,0% 0,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 6,5% 0,0% 3,2%
Ibu rumah tangga Count 20 13 33
Expected Count 16,5 16,5 33,0
% within Pekerjaan ibu 60,6% 39,4% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 64,5% 41,9% 53,2%
% of Total 32,3% 21,0% 53,2%
Lain-lain Count 2 0 2
Expected Count 1,0 1,0 2,0
% within Pekerjaan ibu 100,0% 0,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 6,5% 0,0% 3,2%
% of Total 3,2% 0,0% 3,2%
Total Count 31 31 62
Expected Count 31,0 31,0 62,0
% within Pekerjaan ibu 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
% of Total 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
Test Statisticsa
Pekerjaan ibu
Most Extreme Differences Absolute ,355
Positive ,000
Negative -,355
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 1,397
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,040
a. Grouping Variable: Diagnosis
1.2.2 Cara persalinan
Cara persalinan * Diagnosis Crosstabulation
Diagnosis
Total
SNHL Tidak SNHL
Cara persalinan Normal Count 29 18 47
Expected Count 23,5 23,5 47,0
% within Cara persalinan 61,7% 38,3% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 93,5% 58,1% 75,8%
Tidak normal Count 2 13 15
Expected Count 7,5 7,5 15,0
% within Cara persalinan 13,3% 86,7% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 6,5% 41,9% 24,2%
% of Total 3,2% 21,0% 24,2%
Total Count 31 31 62
Expected Count 31,0 31,0 62,0
% within Cara persalinan 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 10,641a 1 ,001 Continuity Correctionb 8,794 1 ,003 Likelihood Ratio 11,613 1 ,001
Fisher's Exact Test ,002 ,001
Linear-by-Linear Association 10,470 1 ,001
N of Valid Cases 62
a. 0 cells (0,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7,50. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Risk Estimate
Value
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for Cara persalinan (Normal / Tidak normal)
10,472 2,113 51,903
For cohort Diagnosis =
SNHL 4,628 1,249 17,146
For cohort Diagnosis =
Tidak SNHL ,442 ,292 ,668
2. Analisis Inferensial
2.1. Faktor prenatal
2.1.1. Infeksi prenatal
Infeksi prenatal * Diagnosis Crosstabulation
Diagnosis
Total
SNHL Tidak SNHL
Infeksi prenatal Ya Count 1 1 2
Expected Count 1,0 1,0 2,0
% within Infeksi prenatal 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 3,2% 3,2% 3,2%
% of Total 1,6% 1,6% 3,2%
Tidak Count 30 30 60
Expected Count 30,0 30,0 60,0
% within Infeksi prenatal 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 96,8% 96,8% 96,8%
% of Total 48,4% 48,4% 96,8%
Total Count 31 31 62
Expected Count 31,0 31,0 62,0
% within Infeksi prenatal 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square ,000a 1 1,000 Continuity Correctionb ,000 1 1,000 Likelihood Ratio ,000 1 1,000
Fisher's Exact Test 1,000 ,754
Linear-by-Linear Association ,000 1 1,000
N of Valid Cases 62
a. 2 cells (50,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1,00. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Risk Estimate
Value
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for Infeksi
prenatal (Ya / Tidak) 1,000 ,060 16,737
For cohort Diagnosis =
SNHL 1,000 ,244 4,091
For cohort Diagnosis =
Tidak SNHL 1,000 ,244 4,091
N of Valid Cases 62
2.1.2 Penggunaan obat ototoksik
Penggunaan obat ototoksik * Diagnosis Crosstabulation
Diagnosis
Total
SNHL Tidak SNHL
Penggunaan obat ototoksik Ya Count 0 1 1
Expected Count ,5 ,5 1,0
% within Penggunaan obat
ototoksik 0,0% 100,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 0,0% 3,2% 1,6%
% of Total 0,0% 1,6% 1,6%
Tidak Count 31 30 61
Expected Count 30,5 30,5 61,0
% within Penggunaan obat
ototoksik 50,8% 49,2% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 100,0% 96,8% 98,4%
% of Total 50,0% 48,4% 98,4%
Total Count 31 31 62
Expected Count 31,0 31,0 62,0
% within Penggunaan obat
ototoksik 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
% of Total 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1,016a 1 ,313 Continuity Correctionb ,000 1 1,000 Likelihood Ratio 1,403 1 ,236
Fisher's Exact Test 1,000 ,500
Linear-by-Linear Association 1,000 1 ,317
N of Valid Cases 62
a. 2 cells (50,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,50. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Risk Estimate
Value
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
For cohort Diagnosis =
Tidak SNHL 2,033 1,576 2,624 N of Valid Cases 62
2.2 Faktor perinatal
2.2.2 BBLR
BBLR * Diagnosis Crosstabulation Diagnosis Total SNHL Tidak SNHL BBLR Ya Count 10 1 11 Expected Count 5,5 5,5 11,0 % within BBLR 90,9% 9,1% 100,0% % within Diagnosis 32,3% 3,2% 17,7% % of Total 16,1% 1,6% 17,7% Tidak Count 21 30 51 Expected Count 25,5 25,5 51,0 % within BBLR 41,2% 58,8% 100,0% % within Diagnosis 67,7% 96,8% 82,3% % of Total 33,9% 48,4% 82,3%Total Count 31 31 62 Expected Count 31,0 31,0 62,0 % within BBLR 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% % within Diagnosis 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 8,952a 1 ,003 Continuity Correctionb 7,073 1 ,008 Likelihood Ratio 10,144 1 ,001
Fisher's Exact Test ,006 ,003
Linear-by-Linear Association 8,807 1 ,003
N of Valid Cases 62
a. 0 cells (0,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5,50. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Risk Estimate
Value
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for BBLR (Ya /
Tidak) 14,286 1,698 120,203
For cohort Diagnosis =
SNHL 2,208 1,514 3,220
For cohort Diagnosis =
Tidak SNHL ,155 ,024 1,016
2.2.2 Prematuritas
Prematuritas * Diagnosis Crosstabulation
Diagnosis Total SNHL Tidak SNHL Prematuritas Ya Count 8 3 11 Expected Count 5,5 5,5 11,0 % within Prematuritas 72,7% 27,3% 100,0% % within Diagnosis 25,8% 9,7% 17,7% % of Total 12,9% 4,8% 17,7% Tidak Count 23 28 51 Expected Count 25,5 25,5 51,0 % within Prematuritas 45,1% 54,9% 100,0% % within Diagnosis 74,2% 90,3% 82,3% % of Total 37,1% 45,2% 82,3% Total Count 31 31 62 Expected Count 31,0 31,0 62,0 % within Prematuritas 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% % within Diagnosis 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2,763a 1 ,096 Continuity Correctionb 1,768 1 ,184 Likelihood Ratio 2,849 1 ,091
Fisher's Exact Test ,182 ,091
Linear-by-Linear Association 2,718 1 ,099
N of Valid Cases 62
a. 0 cells (0,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5,50. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Risk Estimate
Value
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for Prematuritas
(Ya / Tidak) 3,246 ,771 13,661
For cohort Diagnosis =
SNHL 1,613 1,006 2,585
For cohort Diagnosis =
Tidak SNHL ,497 ,183 1,346
N of Valid Cases 62
2.2.3 Asfiksia neonatorum
Asfiksia neonatorum * Diagnosis Crosstabulation
Diagnosis
Total
SNHL Tidak SNHL
Asfiksia neonatorum Ya Count 5 5 10
Expected Count 5,0 5,0 10,0 % within Asfiksia neonatorum 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% % within Diagnosis 16,1% 16,1% 16,1% % of Total 8,1% 8,1% 16,1% Tidak Count 26 26 52 Expected Count 26,0 26,0 52,0 % within Asfiksia neonatorum 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% % within Diagnosis 83,9% 83,9% 83,9% % of Total 41,9% 41,9% 83,9% Total Count 31 31 62 Expected Count 31,0 31,0 62,0 % within Asfiksia neonatorum 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% % within Diagnosis 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square ,000a 1 1,000 Continuity Correctionb ,000 1 1,000 Likelihood Ratio ,000 1 1,000
Fisher's Exact Test 1,000 ,634
Linear-by-Linear Association ,000 1 1,000
N of Valid Cases 62
a. 0 cells (0,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5,00. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Risk Estimate
Value
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for Asfiksia
neonatorum (Ya / Tidak) 1,000 ,258 3,871
For cohort Diagnosis =
SNHL 1,000 ,508 1,968
For cohort Diagnosis =
Tidak SNHL 1,000 ,508 1,968 N of Valid Cases 62
2.2.4 Ikterus neonatorum
Crosstab Diagnosis Total SNHL Tidak SNHLIkterus neonatorum Ya Count 4 6 10
Expected Count 5,0 5,0 10,0
% within Ikterus neonatorum 40,0% 60,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 12,9% 19,4% 16,1%
Tidak Count 27 25 52
Expected Count 26,0 26,0 52,0
% within Ikterus neonatorum 51,9% 48,1% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 87,1% 80,6% 83,9%
% of Total 43,5% 40,3% 83,9%
Total Count 31 31 62
Expected Count 31,0 31,0 62,0
% within Ikterus neonatorum 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square ,477a 1 ,490 Continuity Correctionb ,119 1 ,730 Likelihood Ratio ,480 1 ,489
Fisher's Exact Test ,731 ,366
Linear-by-Linear Association ,469 1 ,493
N of Valid Cases 62
a. 0 cells (0,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5,00. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Risk Estimate
Value
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for Ikterus
neonatorum (Ya / Tidak) ,617 ,156 2,447
For cohort Diagnosis =
SNHL ,770 ,345 1,719
For cohort Diagnosis = Tidak SNHL
1,248 ,699 2,228
2.3 Faktor postnatal
2.3.1 Infeksi postnatal
Crosstab Diagnosis Total SNHL Tidak SNHLInfeksi postnatal Ya Count 3 10 13
Expected Count 6,5 6,5 13,0
% within Infeksi postnatal 23,1% 76,9% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 9,7% 32,3% 21,0%
% of Total 4,8% 16,1% 21,0%
Tidak Count 28 21 49
Expected Count 24,5 24,5 49,0
% within Infeksi postnatal 57,1% 42,9% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 90,3% 67,7% 79,0%
% of Total 45,2% 33,9% 79,0%
Total Count 31 31 62
Expected Count 31,0 31,0 62,0
% within Infeksi postnatal 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4,769a 1 ,029 Continuity Correctionb 3,504 1 ,061 Likelihood Ratio 4,980 1 ,026
Fisher's Exact Test ,059 ,029
Linear-by-Linear Association 4,692 1 ,030
N of Valid Cases 62
a. 0 cells (0,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6,50. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Risk Estimate
Value
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for Infeksi
postnatal (Ya / Tidak) ,225 ,055 ,920
For cohort Diagnosis =
SNHL ,404 ,145 1,122
For cohort Diagnosis =
Tidak SNHL 1,795 1,157 2,786
N of Valid Cases 62
2.3.2 Penggunaan ventilator mekanis
Crosstab Diagnosis Total SNHL Tidak SNHL Penggunaan ventilator mekanis Ya Count 1 3 4 Expected Count 2,0 2,0 4,0 % within Penggunaan ventilator mekanis 25,0% 75,0% 100,0% % within Diagnosis 3,2% 9,7% 6,5% % of Total 1,6% 4,8% 6,5% Tidak Count 30 28 58 Expected Count 29,0 29,0 58,0 % within Penggunaan ventilator mekanis 51,7% 48,3% 100,0% % within Diagnosis 96,8% 90,3% 93,5% % of Total 48,4% 45,2% 93,5% Total Count 31 31 62 Expected Count 31,0 31,0 62,0 % within Penggunaan ventilator mekanis 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% % within Diagnosis 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1,069a 1 ,301 Continuity Correctionb ,267 1 ,605 Likelihood Ratio 1,115 1 ,291
Fisher's Exact Test ,612 ,306
Linear-by-Linear Association 1,052 1 ,305
N of Valid Cases 62
a. 2 cells (50,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2,00. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Risk Estimate
Value
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for Penggunaan ventilator mekanis (Ya / Tidak)
,311 ,031 3,169
For cohort Diagnosis =
SNHL ,483 ,087 2,687
For cohort Diagnosis =
Tidak SNHL 1,554 ,831 2,904 N of Valid Cases 62
2.3.3 Trauma kepala
Crosstab Diagnosis Total SNHL Tidak SNHLTrauma kepala Ya Count 8 5 13
Expected Count 6,5 6,5 13,0
% within Trauma kepala 61,5% 38,5% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 25,8% 16,1% 21,0%
Tidak Count 23 26 49
Expected Count 24,5 24,5 49,0
% within Trauma kepala 46,9% 53,1% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 74,2% 83,9% 79,0%
% of Total 37,1% 41,9% 79,0%
Total Count 31 31 62
Expected Count 31,0 31,0 62,0
% within Trauma kepala 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
% within Diagnosis 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square ,876a 1 ,349 Continuity Correctionb ,389 1 ,533 Likelihood Ratio ,882 1 ,348
Fisher's Exact Test ,534 ,267
Linear-by-Linear Association ,862 1 ,353
N of Valid Cases 62
a. 0 cells (0,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6,50. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Risk Estimate
Value
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for Trauma
kepala (Ya / Tidak) 1,809 ,518 6,315
For cohort Diagnosis =
SNHL 1,311 ,777 2,211
For cohort Diagnosis = Tidak SNHL
,725 ,347 1,514
3. Analisis multivariat
Case Processing Summary
Unweighted Casesa N Percent
Selected Cases Included in Analysis 62 100,0
Missing Cases 0 ,0
Total 62 100,0
Unselected Cases 0 ,0
Total 62 100,0
a. If weight is in effect, see classification table for the total number of cases.
Dependent Variable Encoding
Original Value Internal Value
SNHL 0
Tidak SNHL 1
Categorical Variables Codings
Frequency
Parameter coding
(1)
Infeksi Postnatal Tidak 49 1,000
Ya 13 ,000
Prematuritas Tidak 51 1,000
Ya 11 ,000
BBLR Tidak 51 1,000
Ya 11 ,000
Classification Tablea,b
Observed Predicted Diagnosis Percentage Correct SNHL Tidak SNHL Step 0 Diagnosis SNHL 0 31 ,0 Tidak SNHL 0 31 100,0 Overall Percentage 50,0
a. Constant is included in the model. b. The cut value is ,500
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step 0 Constant ,000 ,254 ,000 1 1,000 1,000
Variables not in the Equation
Score df Sig.
Step 0 Variables BBLR_reg(1) 8,952 1 ,003
Prematur_reg(1) 2,763 1 ,096
Postnatal_reg(1) 4,769 1 ,029
Overall Statistics 14,958 3 ,002
Method: Enter
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients
Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 18,477 3 ,000
Block 18,477 3 ,000
Model 18,477 3 ,000
Model Summary
Step -2 Log likelihood
Cox & Snell R Square
Nagelkerke R Square
1 67,473a ,258 ,344
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 6 because parameter estimates changed by less than ,001.
Classification Tablea Observed Predicted Diagnosis Percentage Correct SNHL Tidak SNHL Step 1 Diagnosis SNHL 13 18 41,9 Tidak SNHL 2 29 93,5 Overall Percentage 67,7
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
95% C.I.for EXP(B) Lower Upper Step 1a BBLR_reg(1) 3,324 1,410 5,553 1 ,018 27,759 1,749 440,491 Prematur_reg(1) ,500 ,935 ,286 1 ,593 1,648 ,264 10,294 Postnatal_reg(1) -2,487 1,107 5,042 1 ,025 ,083 ,009 ,729 Constant -1,263 1,235 1,046 1 ,306 ,283
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: BBLR_reg, Prematur_reg, Postnatal_reg.
Method: Backward Stepwise (Likelihood Ratio)
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients
Chi-square df Sig. Step 1 Step 18,477 3 ,000 Block 18,477 3 ,000 Model 18,477 3 ,000 Step 2a Step -,288 1 ,591 Block 18,189 2 ,000 Model 18,189 2 ,000
a. A negative squares value indicates that the Chi-squares value has decreased from the previous step.
Model Summary
Step -2 Log likelihood
Cox & Snell R Square
Nagelkerke R Square
1 67,473a ,258 ,344
2 67,762a ,254 ,339
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 6 because parameter estimates changed by less than ,001.
Classification Tablea Observed Predicted Diagnosis Percentage Correct SNHL Tidak SNHL Step 1 Diagnosis SNHL 13 18 41,9 Tidak SNHL 2 29 93,5
Overall Percentage 67,7
Step 2 Diagnosis SNHL 10 21 32,3
Tidak SNHL 1 30 96,8
Overall Percentage 64,5
a. The cut value is ,500
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step 1a BBLR_reg(1) 3,324 1,410 5,553 1 ,018 27,759 Prematur_reg(1) ,500 ,935 ,286 1 ,593 1,648 Postnatal_reg(1) -2,487 1,107 5,042 1 ,025 ,083 Constant -1,263 1,235 1,046 1 ,306 ,283 Step 2a BBLR_reg(1) 3,547 1,366 6,738 1 ,009 34,703 Postnatal_reg(1) -2,457 1,101 4,984 1 ,026 ,086 Constant -1,063 1,163 ,836 1 ,361 ,345
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: BBLR_reg, Prematur_reg, Postnatal_reg.
Model if Term Removed
Variable Model Log Likelihood Change in -2 Log Likelihood df Sig. of the Change Step 1 BBLR_reg -38,559 9,645 1 ,002 Prematur_reg -33,881 ,288 1 ,591 Postnatal_reg -37,814 8,155 1 ,004 Step 2 BBLR_reg -40,485 13,209 1 ,000 Postnatal_reg -37,903 8,045 1 ,005
Variables not in the Equation
Score df Sig.
Step 2a Variables Prematur_reg(1) ,290 1 ,591
Overall Statistics ,290 1 ,591
