. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Sep 1.

Published in final edited form as: Prev Sci. 2009 Sep;10(3):221–235. doi: 10.1007/s11121-009-0131-3

Table 3.

Comparison of engager and nonengager families, for families randomly assigned to the intervention condition

	Nonengagers (n=385)	Compliers (n=115)	Omnibus test
Female gender (%)	44.9	51.3	χ² (df=1)=1.44, ns
Ethnic minority status (%)	55.6	62.6	χ² (df=1)=1.78, ns
Biological dad present (%)	60	40	χ² (df=1) = 14.72, p<0.05
6th grade parental monitoring (M, SD)	3.97 (.98)	3.97 (1.06)	F(1,489)=0.00, n.s.
6th grade deviant peers (M, SD)	0.84 (.94)	1.25 (1.28)	F(1,488) = 13.81, p<0.05
6th grade substance use (M, SD)	0.00 (.88)	0.16 (1.06)	F(1,488)=2.71, n.s.
6th grade family conflict (M, SD)	0.66 (1.05)	1.01 (1.26)	F(1,489)=9.05, p<0.05
6th grade antisocial behavior (M, SD)	1.41 (.65)	1.51 (.56)	F(1,489)=1.96, n.s.
6th grade teacher report of risk (M, SD)	1.79 (.85)	2.13 (.91)	F(1,498) = 14.17, p<0.05

Only participants randomly assigned to the intervention are included in these analyses, because engagement status is not observable in the control condition.