Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Subst Abuse Treat. 2011 Dec 5;42(2):179–190. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2011.10.014

Table 2.

HLM Results for Test of Mediation

Models Coefficient (SE)
Base Rate (γ00) Leadership (γ01) Staff Attribute (γ10) Experience (γ20) Master’s (γ30) Certification (γ40) Caseload (γ50)
Hypothesis 1: Relationship of Staff
Attribute to Innovation Adoption
Model 1a: GR (γ10) 33.46 (.39)** -- .34 (.05)** 1.70 (.51)** 2.12 (.64)** .97 (.71) 1.32 (.43)**
Model 2a: EF (γ10) 33.30 (.39)** -- .41 (.08)** 1.49 (.53)* 1.45 (.66)* 1.00 (.74) 1.26 (.44)**
Model 3a: AD (γ10) 33.40 (.40)** -- .40 (.09)** 1.95 (.51)** 2.05 (.65)** 1.30 (.72) 1.38 (.43)**
Model 4a: IN (γ10) 33.18 (.40)** -- .40 (.05)** 1.10 (.51)* 1.82 (.65)** .44 (.73) 1.09 (.43)*
Hypothesis 2: Relationship of Leadership to Innovation Adoption
Model 5a 33.32 (.43)** .39 (.10)** -- 1.55 (.54)** 2.28 (.68)** 1.36 (.77) 1.39 (.46)**
Hypothesis 3: Relationship of Leadership to Staff Attribute
Model 6: GR (Y) 35.54 (.35)** .65 (.09)** -- -- -- -- --
Model 7: EF (Y) 40.40 (.36)** .36 (.08)** -- -- -- -- --
Model 8: AD (Y) 37.72 (.29)** .25 (.07)* -- -- -- -- --
Model 9: IN (Y) 35.9 (.37)** .35 (.08)** -- -- -- -- --
Hypothesis 4: Mediation of Leadership-Innovation Adoption by Staff Attribute
Model 10a: GR (γ10) 33.46 (.39)** .14 (.09) .32 (.06)** 1.69 (.51)** 2.12 (.64)** 1.00 (.71) 1.34 (.43)**
Model 11a: EF (γ10) 33.29 (.38)** .23 (.09)* .38 (.08)** 1.21 (.53)* 1.48 (.66)* 1.01 (.73) 1.34 (.44)**
Model 12a: AD (γ10) 33.35 (.39)** .27 (.09)** .39 (.06)** 1.94 (.51)** 2.01 (.64)** 1.34 (.72) 1.46 (.43)**
Model 13a: IN (γ10) 33.20 (.39)** .26 (.09)** .37 (.05)** 1.14 (.51)* 1.77 (.64)** .44 (.73) 1.16 (.43)**

GR = Growth, EF = Efficacy, AD = Adaptability, IN = Influence

Note: Y = outcome variable, γ00 = base rate of dependent measure

a

controlling for experience, Master’s degree, certification, and caseload

*

p< .05;

**

p< .01