Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Prev Sci. 2018 Oct;19(7):904–913. doi: 10.1007/s11121-018-0895-4

Table 2.

Summary of ProSAAF Indirect Effects Through Communication (N = 344 dyads)

Men
Women
Indirect Effect
Constrained Model
Indirect Effect
Constrained Model
Outcome Estimate 95% CI χ2 Δχ2 (1) p Estimate 95% CI χ2 Δχ2 (1) p
Satisfaction .320 [.030, .716] 230.182 3.103 .07 .539 [.164, 1.03] 230.028 2.949 .09
Confidence .184 [.017, .445] 233.517 6.438 .01 .323 [.087, .611] 228.053 0.974 .32
Partner support .304 [.030, .691] 230.031 2.952 .09 .483 [.152, .930] 228.689 1.610 .20
Coparenting .561 [.065, 1.30] 228.594 1.515 .22 .834 [.260, 1.81] 230.537 4.458 .04
Parenting .171 [.011, .473] 231.113 4.034 .05 .046 [−.031, .231]

Note. 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) calculated from 2,000 bootstrapped samples. Baseline Model: χ2 (154) = 227.079. CFI = 0.97. TLI = 0.09. RMSEA = .04, p =.99. Contemporaneous measures between men and women at W1 and W3 were correlated in the model. Constrained model for women’s parenting was not run given lack of significant indirect effect.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.