Table 1.
Infant Gaze - Mother Touch: Weighted Lag Analysis for Standard Care (SC) and Family Nurture Intervention (FNI) and their Differences (Δ)
| Infant Gaze | β | SEβ | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IG → IG1 | 1.338 | .055 | <.001 | |
| MT → IG | .029 | .093 | .755 | |
| SC | I Sex2 | −.091 | .179 | .613 |
| IG * Sex→ IG3 | .062 | .061 | .310 | |
| MT * Sex→ IG | .196 | .084 | .021 | |
| FNI | IG → IG | 1.412 | .051 | <.001 |
| MT → IG | .061 | .033 | .064 | |
| Group | −.012 | .180 | .945 | |
| Δ4 | IG * Group → IG5 | .074 | .062 | .232 |
| MT* Group →IG | .032 | .097 | .738 | |
| Mother Touch | β | SEβ | p | |
| MT → MT | 5.783 | .154 | <.001 | |
| IG → MT | .261 | .120 | .029 | |
| SC | I Sex | −.185 | .207 | .376 |
| MT * Sex→ MT | −.278 | .139 | .045 | |
| IG * Sex→ MT | −.403 | .131 | .002 | |
| FNI | MT → MT | 4.709 | .086 | <.001 |
| IG → MT | .601 | .111 | <.001 | |
| Group | .236 | .208 | .260 | |
| Δ | MT * Group → MT | −1.074 | .170 | <.001 |
| IG * Group → MT | .340 | .132 | .010 | |
IG → IG = infant gaze predicting infant gaze: infant gaze self-contingency; MT → IG = mother touch predicting infant gaze: infant gaze interactive contingency with mother touch; these contingency terms represent baseline effects for male infants. Arrow = direction of prediction; predicted variable is to the right of the arrow; weighted lag term is to the left of arrow. In these weighted lag models, the weighted lag term is calculated in relation to the outcome variable, whereas lags in the Individual Seconds models (see Table 2) are not.
Sex = difference in level of infant gaze for female (vs. male) infants.
IG * Sex → IG: additional effect of being female on contingency (female = 1, male = 0).
Δ = difference between FNI (Family Nurture Intervention) vs. SC (Standard Care) groups.
IG * Group → IG: additional effect of being in FNI intervention group (FNI = 1, SC = 0).
Note. Models included time and intercept. Beta values are represented as standardized effect sizes. We evaluated whether contingencies of FNI vs. SC dyads differed, and determined the significance of baseline contingencies for SC dyads and the additional effect of being in FNI group. To determine significance of contingencies of FNI group, we reversed the 0/1 coding of FNI vs. SC and re-ran the models. We include main effects for these models and show significance of baseline contingencies for FNI group (without other terms in the model). We include terms for sex, or 3-way interaction terms (*sex*group), only where significant.