Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 May 10.
Published in final edited form as: J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2010 Apr;31(3):209–216. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181d5a294

Table 2.

Mean Scores for Measures of Child and Parent Outcome

Scale Group n Time 1
Mean (SD)
Time 2
Mean (SD)
p da
Child outcome
Child Behavior Checklist
  Attention problems IT 11 64.7 (7.4) 54.3 (5.6) .011 1.1
WL 14 68.1 (8.2) 62.6 (7.4)
  Aggressive behavior IT 11 70.1 (10.9) 51.1 (1.6) .000 1.6
WL 14 75.8 (11.1) 67.7 (10.2)
  Externalizing problems IT 11 69.4 (9.1) 47.9 (6.1) .000 2.3
WL 14 74.2 (8.9) 66.9 (8.4)
  Internalizing problems IT 11 57.1 (10.5) 44.8 (7.1) .000 1.4
WL 14 58.5 (9.3) 56.5 (8.4)
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
  Intensity IT 11 63.4 (12.2) 43.0 (4.3) .000 2.3
WL 14 64.1 (8.1) 64.6 (9.5)
  Problem IT 11 61.8 (9.3) 45.6 (5.5) .000 1.4
WL 14 65.1 (7.9) 61.1 (10.8)
Dyadic Parent-Child Coding System—Third Edition
  % Child complianceb IT 11 54.7 (25.4) 76.6 (20.0) .039 0.9
WL 14 47.2 (25.9) 55.9 (22.6)
  Parent outcome
 CDI do skillsc IT 11 5.4 (5.2) 16.8 (11.8) .003 1.3
WL 14 7.8 (4.0) 7.5 (7.5)
 CDI don’t skillsc IT 11 36.9 (14.7) 11.6 (7.4) .000 1.3
WL 14 34.7 (14.7) 36.0 (18.4)
Parenting Stress Index-Short Form
  Parental distress IT 11 26.8 (9.7) 23.0 (9.0) .078 0.8
WL 14 30.1 (9.7) 30.1 (8.9)
  Parent-child DI IT 11 23.9 (8.5) 19.2 (5.4) .186 0.4
WL 14 22.1 (5.8) 21.1 (4.8)
  Difficult Child IT 11 36.8 (6.1) 24.3 (8.1) .004 1.3
WL 14 40.6 (7.4) 36.6 (9.4)
Parenting Scale
  Laxness IT 11 31.6 (10.1) 23.0 (9.5) .004 1.1
WL 14 33.7 (10.8) 32.0 (8.4)
  Overreactivity IT 11 27.6 (6.2) 21.6 (6.3) .029 0.8
WL 14 29.9 (7.4) 29.0 (9.1)
  Verbosity IT 11 24.2 (3.1) 20.3 (7.5) .041 0.8
WL 14 24.6 (6.2) 25.8 (7.0)

IT, immediate treatment; WL, waitlist control; CDI, child-directed interaction; DI, dysfunction interaction; SES, socioeconomic status. Time 1 scores did not differ between groups (p > .19); analysis and covariance including child age, child minority status, and SES as covariates did not differ from the above analyses.

a

Cohen’s d = effect size between IT and WL group at the Time 2 assessment.

b

Child compliance was coded during the cleanup situation.

c

CDI skills were coded during the child-led play.