Table 3.

Regression results for PCCT changes at T1 predicting child externalizing problems at T2, separately by study variable

Variables	B	df	p	Adj. α	CI
Child Positive Affect	9.17**	65	.004	.008	3.04, 15.29
Child Negative Affect	.81	65	.830	.046	−6.66, 8.27
Mother Positive Affect	1.20	65	.677	.041	−4.52, 6.91
Mother Negative Affect	−1.69	65	.656	.038	−9.24, 5.85
Child Compliance	1.31	65	.415	.029	−1.88, 4.49
Child Noncompliance	−5.15*	65	.021	.013	−9.50, −0.80
Mother Teaching	2.88**	65	.002	.004	1.08, 4.68
Mother Intrusion	1.38	65	.518	.033	−2.85, 5.61
Dyadic Affective Variability	.23	65	.970	.050	−11.94, 12.40
Dyadic Behavioral Variability	6.44	65	.368	.021	−7.75, 20.64
Child Average RSA	7.39*	43	.041	.017	.32, 14.47
Mother Average RSA	2.81	43	.382	.025	−3.64, 9.27

Note: Twelve analyses were conducted, each with two predictors: the variable’s respective change score (Challenge score – Baseline score) and the control variable of child externalizing at T1. A false discovery rate methodology was applied to guard against Type I error, reflected in the adjusted α column. Positive B parameters indicate that an increase in the variable in response to the challenge was predictive of higher externalizing problems; Negative B parameters indicate that a decrease in the variable in response to the challenge was predictive of higher externalizing problems. T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2;

^†p < .10,

^*p < .05,

^**p < .01,

^***p < .001