bly distinguished between early and delayed disclosers (2 2 (3) = 23.09, p <0.000). There were no significant interac- tions between the predictors. Nagelkerke's R2 of 10.5% suggests only a modest association between the predic- tors and delayed disclosure, although the model did show an adequate fit to th

liably distinguished between early and delayed disclosers (x2 (3) =2309, p <0.000). There were no significant interac- tions between the predictors. Nagelkerke's R2 of 10.5% suggests only a modest association between the predic- tors and delayed disclosure, although the model did show an adequate fit to th

iably distinguished between early and delayed disclosers (g2 (3) =23.09. p <0.000). There were no significant interac- tions between the predictors. Nagelkerke's R2 of 10.5% suggests only a modest association between the predic- tors and delayed disclosure. although the model did show an adequate fit to th