Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Oct 12.
Published in final edited form as: J Soc Social Work Res. 2015 Oct 12;6(4):591–616. doi: 10.1086/684123

Table 3. Mixed Model Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) Comparing Mean Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System Scores.

Waitlist Control (G0) Brief PCIT (G1) Extended PCIT (G2)
Outcomes M (SE) M (SE) M (SE)
Labeled Praise Between-Group Effects
Omnibus Testa (G0 vs. G1 + G2)b (G1 vs. G2)c
 Time 1 .77 .61 .55 p < .001 p < .001 p = .683
(.35) (.43) (.50) ES = .55 ES = .70 ES = .06
 Time 2 1.36 8.58 10.20 Within-Group Effects d
(.30) (.12) (.13) (G0) (G1) (G2)
p = .202 p < .001 p < .001
Negative Talk Between-Group Effects
Omnibus Testa (G0 vs. G1 + G2)b (G1 vs. G2)c
 Time 1 7.09 6.88 8.23 p = .232 p = .111 p = .490
(.16) (.17) (.18) ES = .23 ES = .32 ES = .13
 Time 2 6.26 3.41 5.28 Within-Group Effects d
(.19) (.27) (.24) (G0) (G1) (G2)
p = .545 p = .011 p = .082
Positive Composite Between-Group Effects
Omnibus Testa (G0 vs. G1 + G2)b (G1 vs. G2)c
 Time 1 2.26 2.00 2.80 p < .001 p < .001 p = .215
(.25) (.28) (.27) ES = .56 ES = .72 ES = .21
 Time 2 3.73 18.24 15.41 Within-Group Effects d
(.22) (.10) (.13) (G0) (G1) (G2)
p = .113 p < .001 p < .001
Negative Composite Between-Group Effects
Omnibus Testa (G0 vs. G1 + G2)b (G1 vs. G2)c
 Time 1 31.21 38.64 37.91 p < .001 p < .001 p = .480
(.09) (.08) (.10) ES = .66 ES = .92 ES = .13
 Time 2 28.02 17.16 19.71 Within-Group Effects d
(.10) (.14) (.15) (G0) (G1) (G2)
p = .293 p < .001 p < .001

Note. Coefficients are least squares means. M = mean; SE = standard error; ES = effect size reported as Cohen’s d.

a

Omnibus interaction tests of study condition by time.

b

Interaction contrasts comparing trends of waitlist control (G0) to the average of treatment conditions (G1 + G2).

c

Interaction contrasts comparing trends of the two treatment conditions (G1 vs. G2).

d

Within-group comparison of time effects for each treatment condition.