. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Jan 1.

Published in final edited form as: Child Fam Behav Ther. 2014 Jun 5;36(2):81–106. doi: 10.1080/07317107.2014.910731

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Testing Additive and Moderation Models of the Influence of Status, Income, and Maternal Emotion Coaching on Child Self-Regulation

Contributions of Income, Child Status, and Maternal Coaching to Child Behavior Regulation
	R²	Adj R²	Δ R²	β	β
1. Status	.44	.42	.44^***	.90	.48^***
Income				.22	.32
2. Coach-M	.47	.43	.03	.01	.18
3. CoachMXStatus	.47	.42	.000	−.001	−.07
Contributions of Child Status, Income, and Maternal Coaching to Child Emotion Regulation
1. Status	.21	.18	.21^**	.37	.38^**
Income				.06	.16
2. Coach-M	.22	.17	.002	.001	.04
3. CoachMXStatus	.28	.22	.07^*	−.02	−2.71^*
Contributions of Child Status, Income, and Maternal Coaching to Child Attention Regulation
1. Status	.17	.14	.17^*	.27	.43^*
Income				−.01	−.04
2. Coach-M	.18	.13	.006	.002	.09
3. CoachMXStatus	.20	.13	.02	−.006	−1.38

Note. Adj R² = Adjusted R², Δ R² = change in R², β= unstandardized regression coefficients, β = Standardized regression coefficients, Status = aggressive/rejected or low aggressive/popular, Coach-M = Maternal Emotion Coaching. CoachMXStatus = interaction of Maternal Coaching and child status

⁺

p < .10

p < .05

^**

p <.01

^***

< .001.