. 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 4.

Mediation of treatment effects on multiple informant (parent/child) reported child 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)
Multiple informant 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	0.01 (0.06)	−0.09, 0.11	−0.11, 0.13	0.29 (0.09)	0.14, 0.44	0.11, 0.47	−0.05 (0.02)	−0.08, −0.02	−0.08, −0.02	−0.40
Parent solicitousness	−0.21 (0.03)	−0.26, −0.16	−0.27, −0.15	0.01 (0.06)	−0.09, 0.11	−0.11, 0.13	0.10 (0.10)	−0.07, 0.27	−0.10, 0.30	−0.02 (0.02)	−0.06, 0.01	−0.06, 0.02	−0.14
Child CAT	−0.12 (0.05)	−0.20, −0.04	−0.22, −0.02	0.01 (0.06)	−0.09, 0.11	−0.11, 0.13	0.14 (0.07)	0.03, 0.26	0.003, 0.28	−0.02 (0.01)	−0.03, 0.001	−0.04, 0.01	−0.22
Severity at 6 months
Parent threat	−0.18 (0.03)	−0.23, −0.13	−0.24, −0.12	−0.01 (0.04)	−0.08, 0.06	−0.09, 0.07	0.25 (0.07)	0.13, 0.37	0.11, 0.39	−0.05 (0.01)	−0.07, −0.02	−0.07, −0.02	−0.43
Parent solicitousness	−0.21 (0.03)	−0.26, −0.16	−0.27, −0.15	−0.01 (0.04)	−0.08, 0.06	−0.09, 0.07	−0.03 (0.08)	−0.16, 0.10	−0.19, 0.13	0.01 (0.02)	−0.02, 0.03	−0.03, 0.04	0.05
Child CAT	−0.12 (0.05)	−0.20, −0.04	−0.22, −0.02	−0.01 (0.04)	−0.08, 0.06	−0.09, 0.07	0.08 (0.05)	−0.003, 0.16	−0.02, 0.18	−0.01 (0.01)	−0.02, 0.002	−0.02, 0.005	−0.19
Severity at 12 months
Parent threat	−0.17 (0.03)	−0.22, −0.12	−0.23, −0.11	−0.02 (0.06)	−0.12, 0.08	−0.14, 0.10	0.32 (0.09)	0.17, 0.47	0.14, 0.50	−0.05 (0.02)	−0.08, −0.02	−0.09, −0.02	−0.43
Parent solicitousness	−0.21 (0.03)	−0.26, −0.16	−0.27, −0.15	−0.02 (0.06)	−0.12, 0.08	−0.14, 0.10	0.12 (0.11)	−0.06, 0.30	−0.10, 0.34	−0.03 (0.02)	−0.06, 0.01	−0.07, 0.02	−0.15
Child CAT	−0.12 (0.05)	−0.20, −0.04	−0.22, −0.02	−0.02 (0.06)	−0.12, 0.08	−0.14, 0.10	0.06 (0.07)	−0.06, 0.18	−0.08, 0.20	−0.01 (0.01)	−0.02, 0.01	−0.02, 0.01	−0.11
Pain at 3 months
Parent threat	−0.17 (0.03)	−0.22, −0.12	−0.23, −0.11	−0.01 (0.16)	−0.27, 0.25	−0.32, 0.30	1.30 (0.26)	0.87, 1.73	0.79, 1.81	−0.22 (0.06)	−0.32, −0.12	−0.34, −0.11	−0.53
Parent solicitousness	−0.21 (0.03)	−0.26, −0.16	−0.27, −0.15	−0.01 (0.16)	−0.27, 0.25	−0.32, 0.30	0.14 (0.28)	−0.32, 0.60	−0.41, 0.69	−0.03 (0.06)	−0.13, 0.07	−0.14, 0.09	−0.07
Child CAT	−0.12 (0.05)	−0.20, −0.04	−0.22, −0.02	−0.01 (0.16)	−0.27, 0.25	−0.32, 0.30	0.42 (0.18)	0.12, 0.72	0.07, 0.77	−0.05 (0.03)	−0.10, −0.01	−0.11, 0.009	−0.24
Pain at 6 months
Parent threat	−0.18 (0.03)	−0.23, −0.13	−0.24, −0.12	−0.01 (0.14)	−0.24, 0.22	−0.28, 0.26	0.64 (0.26)	0.21, 1.07	0.13, 1.15	−0.12 (0.05)	−0.20, −0.03	−0.21, −0.02	−0.32
Parent solicitousness	−0.21 (0.03)	−0.26, −0.16	−0.27, −0.15	−0.01 (0.14)	−0.24, 0.22	−0.28, 0.26	−0.37 (0.26)	−0.80, 0.06	−0.88, 0.14	0.08 (0.06)	−0.01, 0.17	−0.03, 0.19	−0.20
Child CAT	−0.12 (0.05)	−0.20, −0.04	−0.22, −0.02	−0.01 (0.14)	−0.24, 0.22	−0.28, 0.26	0.26 (0.17)	−0.02, 0.54	−0.07, 0.59	−0.03 (0.02)	−0.07, 0.01	−0.08, 0.02	−0.18
Pain at 12 months
Parent threat	−0.17 (0.03)	−0.22, −0.12	−0.23, −0.11	0.20 (0.17)	−0.08, 0.48	−0.13, 0.53	0.78 (0.24)	0.38, 1.18	0.31, 1.25	−0.13 (0.05)	−0.21, −0.05	−0.22, −0.04	−0.40
Parent solicitousness	−0.21 (0.03)	−0.26, −0.16	−0.27, −0.15	0.20 (0.17)	−0.08, 0.48	−0.13, 0.53	0.23 (0.29)	−0.25, 0.71	−0.34, 0.80	−0.05 (0.06)	−0.15, 0.05	−0.17, 0.07	−0.11
Child CAT	−0.12 (0.05)	−0.20, −0.04	−0.22, −0.02	0.20 (0.17)	−0.08, 0.48	−0.13, 0.53	0.28 (0.19)	−0.03, 0.59	−0.09, 0.65	−0.03 (0.03)	−0.08, 0.01	−0.09, 0.02	−0.18

Note.

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

= 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.