Table 2.

Hierarchical linear models predicting behavioral engagement in the spring

Fixed Effect2	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	γ	SE	γ	SE	γ	SE	γ	SE
Average spring behavioral engagement (Intercept) (γ00)	69.35***	2.57	71.29***	2.86	68.70***	3.37	65.22***	3.18
Child level
Fall behavioral engagement (γ10)			.01	.15	.01	.15	.00	.15
Spring classmate engagement (γ20)			.21	.14	.19	.14	.18	.14
Network centrality (γ30)			.04	.16	.03	.16	.00	.15
Behavioral difficulties (γ40)			−.86**	.32	−.86**	.34	−.88	.47
Academic motivation (γ50)			.72*	.34	.70*	.34	.83*	.31
Female (γ60)			−4.93	3.16	−5.38	3.15	−3.23	2.99
Classroom level
Social network equity (γ01)					35.19*	14.91	57.15***	14.64
Classroom organization (γ02)					3.60	2.42	3.68	2.12
Social network equity × classroom organization (γ03)							42.63**	14.83
Positive behavior norm (γ04)					−12.11	21.63	−45.84	22.09
Grade (γ05)					−2.97	2.12	−3.35	1.86
Intervention (γ06)					4.77	4.48	9.39	4.45
Behavioral difficulties slope (β3)
Social network equity (γ31)							6.37*	2.44
Classroom organization (γ32)							−.03	.34
Social network equity × classroom organization (γ33)							4.45	2.70
Positive behavior norm (γ34)							−4.94	3.39
Grade (γ35)							−.09	.34
Intervention (γ36)							−.21	.79

Random Effect2	Variance	χ 2	Variance	χ 2	Variance	χ 2	Variance	χ 2
Classroom level residual, u0	88.62***	57.97	100.49***	78.92	47.06***	48.13	28.95***	39.73
Behavioral difficulties slope residual, u1			.31	22.11	.28	21.71	.01	11.14
Child level residual r	194.79		139.82		141.84		121.70

¹The standard errors were not Huber-corrected (robust standard error) because the data do not meet the required number of level-2 units to be appropriate for the calculation

²The Chi square statistics for random effects are based on 21 of 22 units that had sufficient data for computation

^*p < .05

^**p < .01

^***p < .001