Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Behav Res Ther. 2017 Aug 4;97:163–169. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2017.08.002

Table 1.

Model fit statistics.

Model Δ Time Point χ2 (df) p RMSEA [95% CI] CFI SRMR
1. Parent – HNC vs. WL Post 5.03 (2) .081 .126 [.00 to .27] .98 .052
2. Parent – NFPP vs. WL Post 5.51 (2) .064 .133 [.00 to .27] .98 .050
3. Parent – NFPP vs. HNC Post 7.31 (2) .026 .145 [.04 to .26] .97 .065
4. Parent – NFPP vs. HNC Follow-up 27 (2) .000 .314 [.22 to .42] .82 .109
5. Teacher – HNC vs. WL Post 1.56 (2) .459 .000 [.00 to .19] 1.0 .024
6. Teacher – NFPP vs. WL Post .82 (2) .664 .000 [.00 to .15] 1.0 .013
7. Teacher – NFPP vs. HNC Post 4.2 (2) .123 .093 [.00 to .22] .99 .031
8. Teacher – NFPP vs. HNC Follow-up 23 (2) .000 .287 [.19 to .40] .71 .066

Note: Parent = Parent report on the Conners; Teacher = Teacher report on the Conners; in all models the second condition is coded as 0 (WL and then HNC).