Table 2.
Unstandardized Estimates for Three Models of Dyadic Conditional Latent Growth Model for Individual Scales and Two Models of Conditional Latent Growth Model for Dyadic Scales Adjusting for Group (intervention, comparison), Youth Gender (male, female), and Family Type (balanced, unbalanced)
| Model 1: Dyadic Conditional Latent Growth Model for Solution Quantity | |||||||
| Youth Individual Solution Quantity | Parent Individual Solution Quantity | ||||||
| Variable | Parameter | Intercept (I) | Linear Slope (S) | Quadratic (Q) | Intercept (I’) | Linear Slope (S’) | Quadratic (Q’) |
| Group | β | −0.53 | 1.00 | −0.24 | −0.27 | 0.48 | −0.08 |
| SE | (0.46) | (0.54) | (0.13) | (0.49) | (0.52) | (0.13) | |
| 95% CI | [−1.43;0.37] | [−0.05;2.06] | [−0.50;0.03] | [−1.23;0.70] | [−0.55;1.51] | [−0.33;0.17] | |
| Δ | −0.32 | 0.82 | −0.76 | −0.12 | 0.33 | −0.24 | |
| Youth Gender |
β | −1.42* | 0.44 | −0.07 | −0.65 | 0.91 | −0.27* |
| SE | (0.46) | (0.50) | (0.12) | (0.49) | (0.53) | (0.13) | |
| 95%CI | [−2.33; −0.51] | [−0.53;1.42] | [−0.31;0.17] | [−1.62;0.32] | [−0.14;1.95] | [−0.52;0.02] | |
| Δ | −0.86 | 0.36 | −0.21 | −0.34 | 0.61 | −0.84 | |
| Family Type |
β | 0.10 | 0.08 | −0.03 | −1.01 | 1.98* | −0.48* |
| SE | (0.62) | (0.68) | (0.15) | (0.56) | (0.65) | (0.15) | |
| 95% CI | [−1.11;1.13] | [−1.25;1.41] | [−0.33;0.27] | [−2.11;0.08] | [0.70;3.27] | [−0.79; −0.17 | |
| Δ | 0.06 | 0.06 | −0.10 | −0.52 | 1.34 | −1.49 | |
| Model 2: Dyadic Conditional Latent Growth Model for Solution Quality | |||||||
| Youth Individual Solution Quality | Parent Individual Solution Quality | ||||||
| Variable | Parameter | Intercept (I) | Linear Slope (S) | Quadratic (Q) | Intercept (I’) | Linear Slope (S’) | Quadratic (Q’) |
| Group | β | −0.17 | 0.84 | −0.22 | 0.22 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| SE | (0.37) | (0.50) | (0.12) | (0.32) | (0.38) | (0.09) | |
| 95% CI | [−0.89;0.56] | [−0.13;1.80] | [−0.45;0.01] | [−0.43;0.83] | [−0.74;0.76] | [−0.16;0.19] | |
| Δ | −0.16 | 0.67 | −0.85 | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.08 | |
| Youth Gender |
β | −0.80* | 0.47 | −0.11 | 0.11 | 0.05 | −0.04 |
| SE | (0.37) | (0.47) | (0.11) | (0.31) | (0.37) | (0.09) | |
| 95% CI | [−1.53; −0.07] | [−0.45;1.39] | [−0.33;0.11] | [−0.49;0.72] | [−0.68;0.78] | [−0.21; 0.14] | |
| Δ | −0.78 | 0.37 | −0.41 | −0.09 | 0.04 | −0.16 | |
| Family Type |
β | −0.61 | 0.74 | −0.16 | −0.39 | 0.48 | −0.04 |
| SE | (0.50) | (0.62) | (0.14) | (0.37) | (0.52) | (0.09) | |
| 95% CI | [−1.59;0.37] | [−0.48;1.95] | [−0.44;0.11] | [−1.12;0.33] | [−0.53;1.50] | [−0.34;−0.14] | |
| Δ | −0.60 | 0.59 | −0.62 | −0.32 | 0.44 | −0.45 | |
| Model 3: Dyadic Conditional Latent Growth Model for Negotiate Compromise | |||||||
| Youth Individual Solution Quality | Youth Individual Solution Quality | ||||||
| Variable | Parameter | Intercept (I) | Linear Slope (S) | Quadratic (Q) | Intercept (I’) | Linear Slope (S’) | Quadratic (Q’) |
| Group | β | 0.02 | 0.03 | −0.02 | 0.24 | −0.14 | 0.03 |
| SE | (0.09) | (0.11) | (0.03) | (0.24) | (0.25) | (0.06) | |
| 95% CI | [−0.17;0.20] | [−0.19;0.25] | [−0.07;0.04] | [−0.22;0.70] | [−0.64;0.36] | [−0.09; 0.16] | |
| Δ | 0.32 | 0.11 | −0.22 | 0.34 | −0.49 | 0.49 | |
| Youth Gender |
Β | −0.06 | 0.06 | −0.02 | −0.14 | 0.34 | −0.10 |
| SE | (0.09) | (0.12) | (0.03) | (0.23) | (0.24) | (0.06) | |
| 95% CI | [−0.23; −0.12] | [−0.17;0.29] | [−0.07;0.04] | [−0.59;0.32] | [−0.14;0.82] | [−0.22; 0.01] | |
| Δ | −1.16 | 0.23 | −0.26 | −0.20 | 1.18 | −1.49 | |
| Family Type |
β | 0.10 | −0.09 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.39 | −0.10 |
| SE | (0.14) | (0.17) | (0.04) | (0.28) | (0.29) | (0.06) | |
| 95% CI | [−0.18;0.38] | [−0.43;0.25] | [−0.06;0.10] | [−0.54;0.56] | [−0.18;0.95] | [−0.23;0.03] | |
| Δ | 2.03 | −0.35 | 0.30 | 0.02 | 1.35 | −1.48 | |
| Model 4 and Model 5: Conditional Latent Growth Model for Dyadic Scales | |||||||
| Agreement on Solution | Implementation Commitment | ||||||
| Variable | Parameter | Intercept (I) | Linear Slope (S) | Quadratic (Q) | Intercept (I’) | Linear Slope (S’) | Quadratic (Q’) |
| Group | β | 0.10 | 0.56 | −0.10 | 0.42 | 0.32 | −0.08 |
| SE | (0.45) | (0.52) | (0.13) | (0.48) | (0.54) | (0.13) | |
| 95% CI | [−0.78;0.97] | [−0.49;1.61] | [−0.35;0.15] | [−0.51;1.35] | [−0.74;1.39] | [−0.34;0.17] | |
| Δ | 0.07 | 0.85 | −0.79 | 1.95 | 0.77 | −0.48 | |
| Youth Gender |
β | −0.19 | 0.39 | −0.10 | 0.06 | −0.58 | 0.11 |
| SE | (0.43) | (0.52) | (0.13) | (0.48) | (0.50) | (0.11) | |
| 95% CI | [−1.04;0.67] | [−0.63;1.40] | [−0.35;0.14] | [−0.91;1.02] | [−1.55;0.40] | [−0.11;0.33] | |
| Δ | −0.14 | 0.59 | −0.79 | 0.26 | −1.38 | 0.64 | |
| Family Type |
β | −0.75 | 1.52* | −0.29 | −0.04 | 0.67 | −0.15 |
| SE | (0.58) | (0.68) | (0.15) | (0.57) | (0.64) | (0.15) | |
| 95% CI | [−1.89;0.39] | [0.19;2.85] | [−0.59;0.01] | [−1.15;1.07] | [−0.56;1.98] | [−0.46;0.15] | |
| Δ | −0.54 | 2.30 | −2.23 | −0.20 | 1.66 | −0.89 | |
Note:
*
p<0.05.
Model Fit Ranges: N=114; X2=(13.79–66.10); df=(17–46); X2/df=(0.81–1.62); p=(0.01–0.68); Comparative Fit Index=(0.90–1.00); Tucker Lewis Index=(0.75–1.11); Standardized Root Mean Square Residual=(0.00–0.07); Root Mean Square Error of Approximation=(0.06–0.08).
Note: Referents were comparison group, female gender, and balanced family type.