. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jan 1.

Published in final edited form as: Fam Community Health. 2019 Jan-Mar;42(1):30–43. doi: 10.1097/FCH.0000000000000209

Table 5.

Mediators of the Effect of the Intervention on Sexual Protection Communication

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3		Reduction of Intervention Effect on Communication (%)	Cohen’s d^† for Reduction of Intervention Effect on Communication
Mediator	Effect^* of Intervention on Communication Without Controlling for Mediator	Effect^* of Intervention on Mediator	Effect^** of Mediator on Communication	Effect^* of Intervention on Communication Controlling for Mediator	Reduction of Intervention Effect on Communication (%)
Self-Efficacy	.0234 (.0087) p = .0076	.0120 (.0056) p = .0327	.3137 (.0308) p < .0001	.0203 (.0084) p = .0157	.0031 (13%)	.36
Sexual Communication Attitudes	.0234 (.0087) p = .0076	.0072 (.0033) p = .0299	.5780 (.0595) p < .0001	.0202 (.0084) p =.0168	.0032 (14%)	.37
Subjective Norms	.0234 (.0087) p = .0076	.0131 (.0056) p = .0197	.1829 (.0351) p < .0001	.0213 (.0085) p = .0132	.0021 (9%)	.24

Note. Table covers all time points; [Estimate (Standard Error)]

Group x Time interaction effect

^**

Main effect of mediator

^†

Small (0-.30), Medium (.30-.60), Large (>.60)