In the original publication (), there was a mistake in Table 3. The minus sign is missing in some figures. Corrected Table 3 appears below.
Table 3.
The table shows the results of the stepwise hierarchical regression analysis for Hypothesis 1.
Table 3.
The table shows the results of the stepwise hierarchical regression analysis for Hypothesis 1.
| Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | Step 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | β | β | β | |
| R2 = 0.22 ** | R2 = 0.36 ** ΔR2 = 0.14 | R2 = 0.67 ** ΔR2 = 0.31 | R2 = 0.68 ** ΔR2 = 0.01 | |
| Gender 1 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| Age | −0.05 | −0.10 * | −0.03 | −0.04 |
| Relation 2 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Paid job 3 | 0.10 * | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| Education 4 | −0.04 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| Home living child 5 | −0.03 | −0.05 | −0.01 | −0.02 |
| Spirituality T1 | 0.48 ** | 0.39 ** | 0.04 | 0.04 |
| Mental distress T1 | −0.38 ** | −0.12 ** | ||
| Well-being T1 | 0.80 ** | 0.74 ** |
1 1 = woman; 2 1 = none; 3 Regardless of hours; 4 scientific = higher vocational education, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, or postdoctoral degree; 5 kids, yes = at least one minor living at home (i.e., child). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; R2 = R square; β = standardized regression coefficient.
In the original publication (), there was a mistake in Table 5. The minus sign is missing in some figures. Corrected Table 5 appears below.
Table 5.
The table shows the results of the stepwise hierarchical regression analysis for Hypothesis 2.
Table 5.
The table shows the results of the stepwise hierarchical regression analysis for Hypothesis 2.
| Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | Step 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | β | β | β | |
| R2 = 0.09 ** | R2 = 0.23 ** ΔR2 = 0.14 | R2 = 0.70 ** ΔR2 = 0.47 | R2 = 0.70 ** ΔR2 = 0.00 | |
| Gender 1 | −0.10 * | −0.11 ** | −0.02 ** | −0.02 |
| Age | −0.18 ** | −0.18 ** | −0.08 * | −0.08 ** |
| Relation 2 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Paid job 3 | −0.09 | −0.05 | −0.01 | −0.00 |
| Education 4 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Home living child 5 | −0.08 | −0.10 * | −0.05 | −0.06 * |
| Spirituality T1 | −0.20 ** | 0.03 | −0.01 | 0.03 |
| Well-being T1 | −0.44 ** | −0.09 ** | ||
| Mental distress T1 | 0.81 ** | 0.78 ** |
1 1 = woman; 2 1 = none; 3 Regardless of hours; 4 Education, scientific = higher vocational education, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, or postdoctoral degree; 5 kids, yes = at least one minor living at home (i.e., child). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. β standardized regression coefficient.
The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.
Reference
- Huijs, Thijs, Arjan W. Braam, Renske Kruizinga, Nele Jacobs, Jennifer Reijnders, and Marianne Simons. 2024. Spirituality as a Predictor of Well-Being, Mental Distress or Both: A Four-Week Follow-Up Study in a Sample of Dutch and Belgian Adults. Religions 15: 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).