Table 3.

Summary of final three hierarchical regression tests predicting family attendance in the intervention (n = 353)

Predictors by domain	Block 1 (Main effects)			Block 2 (with interactions)
	B	SE	β	B	SE	β
Test 1—Language, other demographicsa
Family language	1.46**	.44	.21	−.35	.96	−.05
Number of parent hours worked	−.01	.01	−.02	.02	.01	.13
Family income	.01	.01	.03	.01	.01	.04
Family education level	.04	.06	.04	.03	.06	.03
Number of kids in home	−.06	.12	−.02	−.06	.12	−.03
Parent status	−.39	.53	−.04	− 1.22†	.65	−.14
Language × Parent hours worked	(entered in Block 2)			−1.22**	.65	−.14
Language × Parent status	(entered in Block 2)			−.046*	.02	−.21
Test 2—Language, child adjustmentb
Family language	1.07**	.38	.16	n/a
Child externalizing symptoms	−.09	.03	−.05	n/a
Child internalizing symptoms	.03	.02	.10	n/a
Child GPA	.18*	.07	.14	n/a
Test 3—Language, other acculturation factorsc
Family language	1.24	.80	.18	1.15	.79	.17
Primary parent Anglo orientation	−.02	.34	−.01	−.07	.37	−.02
Primary parent familism	−.22	.52	−.02	−.29	.52	−.03
Child Anglo orientation	.05	.33	.01	.01	.33	.01
Child familism	.61	.45	.07	−.60	.67	−.07
Language × Child familism	(entered in Block 2)			2.16*	.90	.20

Note: Coding was as follows: Language (0 = English, 1 = Spanish); Parent status (0 = single parent, 1 = dual parent)

^aStep 1 Adj. R² = .00 (F(5,343) = .31, ns); Step 2 Adj. ΔR² = .03 (ΔF(2,341) = 5.1, P < .05)

^bStep 1 Adj. R² = .02 (F(3,335) = 2.8, P < .05)

^cStep 1 Adj. R² = .04 (F(5,332) = 2.5, P < .05); Step 2 Adj. ΔR² = .02 (ΔF(1,331) = 5.8, P < .05)

^†P < .10

^*P < .05

^**P < .01