TABLE 5.

HLM Results for 3-Level Model Examining the Effect of SWPBIS on Emotion Regulation

Emotion Regulationa	Coefficient	SE	t Ratio	P Value
Intercept
Intercept	4.9780	0.0438	113.65	<.001
School-level variables
Mobility	−0.0015	0.0037	−0.41	NS
Student/teacher ratio	−0.0083	0.0105	−0.79	NS
Faculty turnover	−0.0001	0.0046	−0.02	NS
Enrollment	−0.0016	0.0216	−0.07	NS
Student-level variables
Special education status	−0.3605	0.0361	−9.98	<.001
Ethnicity (black)	−0.3300	0.0507	−6.51	<.001
Grade cohort	0.0286	0.0623	0.46	NS
FARMS	−0.2086	0.0355	−5.88	<.001
Gender	−0.4221	0.0233	−18.14	<.001
Slope (growth)
Intercept	−0.0089	0.0164	−0.54	NS
School-level variables
SWPBIS intervention	0.0277	0.0120	2.30	<.05
Mobility	−0.0023	0.0012	−2.02	NS
Student/teacher ratio	−0.0023	0.0022	−1.06	NS
Faculty turnover	−0.0031	0.0014	−2.23	<0.05
Enrollment	0.0145	0.0073	1.98	NS
Student-level variables
Special education status	0.0217	0.0109	2.00	<.05
Ethnicity (black)	−0.0397	0.0091	−4.37	<.001
Grade cohort	−0.0143	0.0213	−0.67	NS
FARMS	−0.0128	0.0098	−1.31	NS
Gender	−0.0307	0.0089	−3.43	<.01
Post hoc cross-level interactions
Grade cohort × SWPBIS	0.0543	0.0229	2.38	<.05
Gender × SWPBIS	−0.0157	0.0135	−1.16	NS
Special education status × SWPIS	−0.0079	0.0150	−0.52	NS
Random Effect	Variance Component	χ2		P Value
Level 1	0.6244
Level 2	0.5908	43611.1		<.001
Level 3 time/slope	0.0026	185.3		<.001

Akaike information criterion = 102279.3; Bayesian information criterion = 102206.9. SWPBIS was coded 1 (intervention), 0 (comparison). FARMS indicates free or reduced meals status. Gender was coded 1 (male), 0 (female). Black was coded 1(Black), 0 (all others). Grade cohort indicates the grade the youth was in when the trial began, coded 1 (Kindergarten), 0 (grades 1 or 2).

^aResults presented are from the model that did not include the post hoc interactions. The interclass correlation for emotion regulation skills was 0.06.