Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Clin J Pain. 2014 Dec;30(12):1033–1043. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000077

Table 3.

Mediation of treatment effects on child-reported GI symptom severity and pain at 3, 6 and 12 months by changes from baseline to 1 week post-treatment in parental threat, parental solicitousness, and child catastrophizing

a c’ b a*b Effect size
of the
indirect
effect
(a*b)
Child-reported outcome Estimate
(SE)
90 CI 95 CI Estimate
(SE)
90 CI 95 CI Estimate
(SE)
90 CI 95
CI
Estimate
(SE)
90 CI 95
CI
Hedges’ g
Severity at 3 months
 Parent threat −0.17
(0.03)
−0.22,
−0.12
−0.23,
−0.11
0.02
(0.05)
−0.06,
0.10
−0.08,
0.12
0.06
(0.07)
−0.06,
0.18
−0.08,
0.20
−0.01
(0.01)
−0.03,
0.01
−0.03,
0.01
−0.12
 Parent solicitousness −0.21
(0.03)
−0.26,
−0.16
−0.27,
−0.15
0.02
(0.05)
−0.06,
0.10
−0.08,
0.12
−0.01
(0.08)
−0.14,
0.12
−0.17,
0.15
0.002
(0.02)
−0.03,
0.03
−0.03,
0.03
0.02
 Child CAT −0.12
(0.05)
−0.20,
−0.04
−0.22,
−0.02
0.02
(0.05)
−0.06,
0.10
−0.08,
0.12
0.14
(0.05)
0.06,
0.22
0.04,
0.24
−0.02
(0.01)
−0.03,
−0.002
−0.03,
−0.001
−0.26
Severity at 6 months
 Parent threat −0.18
(0.03)
−0.23,
−0.13
−0.24,
−0.12
−0.003
(0.05)
−0.09,
0.08
−0.10,
0.10
0.13
(0.07)
0.02,
0.25
−0.01,
0.27
−0.02
(0.01)
−0.05,
−0.002
−0.05,
0.002
−0.25
 Parent solicitousness −0.21
(0.03)
−0.26,
−0.16
−0.27,
−0.15
−0.003
(0.05)
−0.09,
0.08
−0.10,
0.10
−0.08
(0.08)
−0.21,
0.05
−0.24,
0.08
0.02
(0.02)
−0.01,
0.04
−0.02,
0.05
0.14
 Child CAT −0.12
(0.05)
−0.20,
−0.04
−0.22,
−0.02
−0.003
(0.05)
−0.09,
0.08
−0.10,
0.10
0.18
(0.05)
0.10,
0.26
0.08,
0.28
−0.02
(0.01)
−0.04,
−0.004
−0.04,
0.0004
−0.28
Severity at 12 months
 Parent threat −0.18
(0.03)
−0.23,
−0.13
−0.24,
−0.12
−0.11
(0.06)
−0.21,
−0.01
−0.23,
0.01
0.05
(0.09)
−0.10,
0.20
−0.13,
0.23
−0.01
(0.02)
−0.04,
0.02
−0.04,
0.02
−0.08
 Parent solicitousness −0.21
(0.03)
−0.26,
−0.16
−0.27,
−0.15
−0.11
(0.06)
−0.21,
−0.01
−0.23,
0.01
−0.08
(0.10)
−0.25,
0.09
−0.28,
0.12
0.02
(0.02)
−0.02,
0.05
−0.02,
0.06
0.11
 Child CAT −0.12
(0.05)
−0.20,
−0.04
−0.22,
−0.02
−0.11
(0.06)
−0.21,
−0.01
−0.23,
0.01
0.12
(0.07)
0.004,
0.24
−0.02,
0.26
−0.01
(0.01)
−0.03,
0.003
−0.03,
0.006
−0.20
Pain at 3 months
 Parent threat −0.18
(0.03)
−0.23,
−0.13
−0.24,
−0.12
0.03
(0.13)
−0.18,
0.24
−0.22,
0.28
0.59
(0.19)
0.28,
0.90
0.22,
0.96
−0.11
(0.04)
−0.17,
−0.04
−0.18,
−0.03
−0.39
 Parent solicitousness −0.21
(0.03)
−0.26,
−0.16
−0.27,
−0.15
0.03
(0.13)
−0.18,
0.24
−0.22,
0.28
−0.16
(0.23)
−0.54,
0.22
−0.61,
0.29
0.03
(0.05)
−0.05,
0.11
−0.06,
0.13
0.10
 Child CAT −0.12
(0.05)
−0.20,
−0.04
−0.22,
−0.02
0.03
(0.13)
−0.18,
0.24
−0.22,
0.28
0.24
(0.15)
−0.01,
0.49
−0.05,
0.53
−0.03
(0.02)
−0.06,
0.007
−0.07,
0.01
−0.19
Pain at 6 months
 Parent threat −0.18
(0.03)
−0.23,
−0.13
−0.24,
−0.12
0.06
(0.12)
−0.14,
0.26
−0.18,
0.30
0.37
(0.17)
0.09,
0.65
0.04,
0.70
−0.07
(0.03)
−0.12,
−0.01
−0.13,
−0.003
−0.29
 Parent solicitousness −0.21
(0.03)
−0.26,
−0.16
−0.27,
−0.15
0.06
(0.12)
−0.14,
0.26
−0.18,
0.30
−0.37
(0.20)
−0.70,
−0.04
−0.76,
0.02
0.08
(0.04)
0.006,
0.15
−0.01,
0.16
0.25
 Child CAT −0.12
(0.05)
−0.20,
−0.04
−0.22,
−0.02
0.06
(0.12)
−0.14,
0.26
−0.18,
0.30
0.26
(0.13)
0.05,
0.47
0.005,
0.52
−0.03
(0.02)
−0.06,
0.002
−0.07,
0.009
−0.22
Pain at 12 months
 Parent threat −0.17
(0.03)
−0.22,
−0.12
−0.23,
−0.11
0.09
(0.13)
−0.12,
0.30
−0.16,
0.34
0.28
(0.19)
−0.03,
0.59
−0.09,
0.65
−0.05
(0.03)
−0.10,
0.007
−0.11,
0.02
−0.20
 Parent solicitousness −0.21
(0.03)
−0.26,
−0.16
−0.27,
−0.15
0.09
(0.13)
−0.12,
0.30
−0.16,
0.34
−0.10
(0.23)
−0.48,
0.28
−0.55,
0.35
0.02
(0.05)
−0.06,
0.10
−0.07,
0.12
0.06
 Child CAT −0.12
(0.05)
−0.20,
−0.04
−0.22,
−0.02
0.09
(0.13)
−0.12,
0.30
−0.16,
0.34
0.16
(0.15)
−0.09,
0.41
−0.13,
0.45
−0.02
(0.02)
−0.05,
0.01
−0.06,
0.02
−0.14

Note.

a

= change in the mediator from baseline to post−treatment due to SLCBT treatment compared to ES;

b

= direct effect of change in the mediator from baseline to post−treatment on change in the outcome;

c’

= direct effect of treatment on the outcome variable;

a*b

=indirect (mediated) effect of treatment on the outcome. To facilitate interpretation of the table, Hedges’ g for the a*b effect was bolded if the .90 confidence intervals (CI) excluded zero, suggesting that mediation is present. Hedges’ g values can be interpreted approximately as follows: .80 large, .50 medium and .20 small.

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure