Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2012 Dec 13;42(4):545–553. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2012.743105

Table 2.

Correlations Among Session 1 and 2 Predictors of Homework Adherence

Time point Measure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Session 1 1. Initial resistance
2. Specifying Task .24
3. Providing Rationale −.04 .04
4. Eliciting/Troubleshooting .22 .05 .24
5. Time Spent Assigning .14 .42** .52** .11
Session 2 6. Specifying Task .04 .06 .12 −.08 .27
7. Providing Rationale .13 .13 .03 .00 −.15 .12
8. Eliciting/Troubleshooting .07 .00 −.07 .40** −.01 .08 .11
9. Praising Adherence −.19 −.05 .03 .49** −.13 −.15 −.07 .21
10. Time Spent Assigning .17 .05 .04 .05 .15 .42** .38** .42** −.33*
11. Session 2 Homework Adherence −.26 .06 .25 −.04 .38* .05 −.34* −.10 .14 .03
Pre-Treatment 12. Hispanic/Latino Ethnicitya −.13 .08 −.17 .15 −.24 .09 .29* .15 .13 .08 −.31*

p < .10.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

a

Spearman correlations are reported for this dichotomous variable.