Table 2.

Results from Growth Models of Parents’ Engagement

	Model 1: Growth curve model		Model 2: Growth curve model with predictors
	Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE
Fixed effectsa
Intercept, γ000	3.296*	0.089	3.274*	0.094
Time, γ001	0.131*	0.038	0.151*	0.043
Time2, γ002	−0.011*	0.005	−0.015*	0.006
Session-specific family tension, γ003			0.012	0.035
Chronic family tension, γ020			−0.157*	0.054
Chronic * Session-specific family tension, γ013			−0.159*	0.071
Father, γ010			−0.016	0.045
Curriculum Version, γ100			−0.117	0.110
Random effects
Level 2 (person)
Variance intercept, σ2νji0	0.075*	0.010	0.077*	0.010
Covariance intercept, session-specific family tension, σ2νji0vji3			0.009	0.009
Variance session-specific family tension, σ2νji3			0.015*	0.007
Level 3 (group)
Variance intercept, σ2uj00	0.180*	0.058	0.201*	0.067
Covariance intercept, time, σ2uj00uj01	−0.057*	0.022	−0.068*	0.026
Variance time, σ2uj01	0.028*	0.011	0.037*	0.014
Covariance intercept, time2, σ2uj00uj02	0.007*	0.003	0.008*	0.003
Covariance time, time2, σ2uj01uj02	−0.003*	0.001	−0.004*	0.002
Variance time2, σ2uj02	0.000*	0.000	0.001*	0.000
Residual variance, σ2εjit	0.155*	0.006	0.145*	0.007
−2LL	1868.3		1667.6
AIC	1884.3		1687.6

Note. Unstandardized estimates and standard errors. Effects are scaled in units of engagement scale scores (1–4) per session. Model based on up to 7 occasions nested within 252 participants for a total of 1445 observations with engagement scores (Model 1) 1284 observations with all predictor variables (Model 2). Participants comprised 26 implementation groups. −2LL = −2 Log Likelihood; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion, relative model fit statistics. Model 2 parameters sometimes indicate higher variance than Model 1 parameters because of change in centering location caused by the interaction term in Model 2.

^aPositive effects should be interpreted for higher session-specific tension, higher chronic tension, later sessions, fathers, and modified curriculum. Intercept represents session 1 for the average participant.

^*p < .05