Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychophysiology. 2017 Aug 28;55(2):10.1111/psyp.12985. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12985

Table 2.

Mother model

Child Externalizing Model Child Internalizing Model Maternal Depressive Symptoms Model Maternal Psychological Aggression Model
Estimated intercepts:
During FP:
 Mean RSA 5.850 (.212)*** 6.045 (.185)*** 6.451 (.131)*** 6.210 (.166)***
 RSA Self-regulation −.115 (.087) −.037 (.095) −.118 (.078) −.056 (.083)
 RSA Concordance .289 (.069)*** .326 (.065)*** .197 (.051)*** .233 (.053)***
During CU:
 Mean RSA 5.809 (.193)*** 5.975 (1.83)*** 6.345 (.128)*** 6.057 (.133)***
 RSA Self-regulation −.028 (.053) −.015 (.073) .094 (.073) .035 (.056)
 RSA Concordance .351 (.058)*** .235 (.068)*** .217 (.058)*** .210 (.052)***
During TT:
 Mean RSA 5.730 (.020)*** 5.914 (.182)*** 6.301 (.132)*** 6.052 (.153)***
 RSA Self-regulation .057 (.066) .010 (.056) .119 (.053)* .079 (.057)
 RSA Concordance .080 (.066) .118 (.065)† .093 (.043)* .118 (.053)*
Prediction of Mean RSA given:
Main Effects:
 FP (0) vs. CU (1) −.041 (.117) −.069 (.112) −.107 (.090) −.153 (.091)†
 FP (0) vs. TT (1) −.120 (.125) −.131 (.124) −.150 (.107) −.158 (.104)
 CU (0) vs. TT (1) −.079 (.124) −.061 (.116) −.044 (.093) −.005 (.095)
 RP during FP .039 (.016)* .029 (.018) −.031 (.016)* .001 (.007)
 RP during CU .034 (.014)* .024 (.018) −.031 (.016)* .007 (.007)
 RP during TT .040 (.015)* .026 (.018) −.033 (.017)† .007 (.004)
Interactions:
 RP during FP (0) vs. CU (1) −.006 (.010) −.005 (.014) −.005 (.014) .006 (.004)
 RP during FP (0) vs. TT (1) .001 (.008) −.003 (.017) −.003 (.017) .003 (.005)
 RP during CU (0) vs. TT (1) .006 (.011) .001 (.015) .001 (.015) −.003 (.004)
Prediction of RSA Self-Regulation given:
Main Effects:
 FP (0) vs. CU (1) .087 (.088) .022 (.105) .282 (.086)* .091 (.076)
 FP (0) vs. TT (1) .172 (.112) .048 (.115) .236 (.088)** .135 (.091)
 CU (0) vs. TT (1) .085 (.077) .025 (.092) −.001 (.008) .044 (.062)
 RP during FP .009 (.006) −.001 (.009) .011 (.006)† .002 (.004)
 RP during CU .007 (.006) .011 (.010) −.006 (.008) .001 (.004)
 RP during TT .003 (.006) .010 (.006)† −.006 (.004) .000 (.002)
Interactions:
 RP during FP (0) vs. CU (1) −.002 (.007) .011 (.014) −.006 (.007)* −.001 (.005)
 RP during FP (0) vs. TT (1) −.006 (.008) .011 (.011) −.017 (.006)** −.002 (.005)
 RP during CU (0) vs. TT (1) −.005 (.007) .000 (.011) −.001 (.008) −.002 (.004)
Prediction of RSA Concordance given:
Main Effects:
 FP (0) vs. CU (1) .062 (.080) −.091 (.081) .019 (.080) −.023 (.066)
 FP (0) vs. TT (1) −.209 (.079)** −.208 (.074)** −.105 (.067) −.115 (.071)
 CU (0) vs. TT (1) −.271 (.073)*** −.118 (.082) −.124 (.064)* −.092 (.063)
 RP during FP −.011 (.005)* −.019 (.007)** −.001 (.004) −.005 (.002)*
 RP during CU −.016 (.005)** −.005 (.009) −.004 (.008) −.001 (.003)
 RP during TT .001 (.005) −.002 (.007) −.001 (.006) −.003 (.003)
Interactions:
 RP during FP (0) vs. CU (1) −.005 (.007) .015 (.011) −.002 (.009) .003 (.004)
 RP during FP (0) vs. TT (1) .012 (.006)† .017 (.009)† .001 (.008) .002 (.003)
 RP during CU (0) vs. TT (1) .017 (.006)** .002 (.012) .003 (.010) −.001 (.004)

Note: Values in table denote b(SE) unless noted otherwise. FP = Free Play Task; CU = Clean-up Task; TT = Teaching Task; RP = Risk for psychopathology.