Table 3.
Key Variables | n | Correlation Matrix | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
# of Visits | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ||
1. # of Visits | 181 | ||||||||||||||
2. Child EBP Content | 181 | .18* | |||||||||||||
3. Child EBP Technique | 181 | .19* | .61*** | ||||||||||||
4. Parent EBP Content | 165 | .06 | .25*** | .25*** | |||||||||||
5. Parent EBP Technique | 165 | −.01 | .20** | .44*** | .67*** | ||||||||||
6. Child Other Content | 181 | .15 | .49*** | .42*** | .31*** | .21** | |||||||||
7. Child Other Technique | 181 | .11 | .57*** | .46*** | .17* | .07 | .50*** | ||||||||
8. Parent Other Content | 165 | −.02 | .05 | .13 | .48*** | .48*** | .28*** | .12 | |||||||
9. Parent Other Technique | 165 | .00 | .09 | .17* | .48*** | .41*** | .24** | .28*** | .67*** | ||||||
10. Parent Educ.: Some college + | 176 | .25*** | .05 | .06 | −.13 | −.04 | −.09 | .14 | −.12 | −.04 | |||||
11. Funding source: School-based | 172 | .33*** | .19* | .11 | .06 | .05 | .13 | .14 | −.03 | −.13 | .19* | ||||
12. Parent Alliance (TASC) | 151 | .28*** | .19* | .25** | .05 | .10 | .11 | .03 | .03 | .02 | .04 | −.07 | |||
13. Therapist Months Practiced | 78 | −.15* | −.06 | −.12** | −.05 | −.10 | .01 | −.04 | −.10 | −.11 | .02 | .08 | −.23** | ||
14. Gender: Female | 181 | −.13 | .05 | .03 | .07 | −.03 | .07 | .03 | −.13 | −.03 | −.11 | −.13 | .03 | .02 | |
15. Comorbidity | 181 | .16* | .23* | .18* | −.02 | .05 | .15* | .17* | −.05 | .04 | .09 | .21** | .02 | .00 | −.06 |
= p <.05;
=p ≤ .01;
= p ≤ .001; 2-tailed significance.
Note: All correlations are Pearson correlations, with the exception of variables associated with parent education, funding source, gender, and comorbidity (Spearman’s Rho was calculated for those correlations given the categorical nature of those two variables).