Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Qual Life Res. 2010 Dec 19;20(6):833–844. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9822-2

Table 7.

Slopes and significance tests for partners’ quality of life outcomes

Outcomes TIP-C HEAC
Parameter estimate (SE) Parameter estimate (SE) Sig. difference between slopes#
Psychological well-being
 Depression −2.2679* (1.0641) −3.8946* (1.7519) F(1,69) = 4.54, P < 0.05
 Positive affect 1.4314 (1.0708) 0.7682 (1.2319) F(1,69) = 1.50, ns
 Negative affect −1.3636 (1.3079) −1.5542 (1.0340) F(1,69) = 0.06, ns
 Perceived stress −1.5597 (1.0490) −1.7639 (1.0729) F(1,69) = 0.13, ns
Physical well-being
 Fatigue 1.4417 (1.6497) −1.5818 (2.2899) F(1,69) = 10.28, P < 0.01
Social well-being
 Social support-family 0.9739 (0.6576) 1.6075* (0.4374) F(1,69) = 6.47, P < 0.05
 Social well-being 1.5135 (1.8419) 4.4571* (1.4849) F(1,69) = 7.67, P < 0.01
Spiritual well-being
 Spiritual well-being 0.4100 (1.2137) 4.0452* (1.5729) F(1,69) = 11.31, P < 0.01

All slopes are based on prior natural (Naperian) logarithmic transformations of time.

*

Slope differs significantly from 0 at P < 0.05.

#

Tested with univariate ANOVA. TIP-C Telephone interpersonal counseling, HEAC Health education attention condition