Table 2.
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.
Cohen’s d = effect size between IT and WL group at the Time 2 assessment.
Child compliance was coded during the cleanup situation.
CDI skills were coded during the child-led play.