Table 2.
Effect of Random Assignment to the Intervention Condition on Antisocial Behavior After Grade 9
| Modeling outcome | Estimate | p |
|---|---|---|
| Factor loadings for antisocial-behavior construct | ||
| Parcel 1 | 1.14 | .001 |
| Parcel 2 | 0.89 | .001 |
| Parcel 3 | 0.97 | .001 |
| Parcel 4 | 0.90 | .001 |
| Estimates of effect on antisocial-behavior construct after Grade 9 | ||
| Durham (vs. Seattle) | −0.30 | .01 |
| Nashville (vs. Seattle) | −0.04 | .73 |
| Pennsylvania (vs. Seattle) | −0.21 | .05 |
| Cohort 1 (vs. Cohort 3) | −0.03 | .73 |
| Cohort 2 (vs. Cohort 3) | −0.04 | .69 |
| Male (vs. female) | 0.35 | .001 |
| Black (vs. White) | 0.21 | .07 |
| Initial risk score | −0.02 | .62 |
| Intervention | −0.16 | .01 |
Note: The fit indices for the structural equation model are as follows: χ2 = 93.46, p < .03; root-mean-square error of approximation = .03; confirmatory fit index = .975.