Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Youth Adolesc. 2013 Sep 24;43(5):824–833. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-0015-5

Table 3.

Pubertal timing and rumination predicting interpersonal stressful events at Time 2

Step Variable Interpersonal dependent Interpersonal independent


β SE t ΔR2 f2 β SE t ΔR2 f2
Step 1 T1 CDI .21 .04 3.33*** .12*** .14 .16 .02 2.54* .09*** .09
T1 MASC .09 .02 1.41 −.02 .01 −0.31
Sex .17 .44 3.01** .14 .20 2.48*
Race .02 .44 .29 −.17 .20 −2.96**
Step 2 PDS .06 .21 1.12 .01 .02 .05 .10 .80 <.01 <.01
CRSQ .09 .04 1.40 .05 .02 0.73
Step 3 PDS × CRSQ .12 .03 2.12* .01* .02 .07 .01 1.24 <.01 <.01
*

p <.05

**

p <.01

***

p < .001

Linear regressions were conducted to estimate results (β standardized coefficient, SE standard error, t student’s t score, ΔR2 change in R2 represents percentage of variance accounted for at each step, f2 = Cohen’s f). Coefficients were derived from Step 3 of the final regression model. T1 Time 1, PDS Pubertal timing score from the Pubertal Development Scale, CDI Children’s Depression Inventory, MASC Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children, CRSQ Rumination subscale of the Children’s Response Style Questionnaire. Sex is coded with male (0) and female (1). Race is coded with African American (0) and Caucasian (1)