. 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 6.

Mediators of the Effect of the Intervention on Sexual Risk 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	.0179 (.0069) p = .0099	.0123 (.0056) p = .0273	.2194 (.0257) p < .0001	.0153 (.0067) p = .0229	.0026 (15%)	.38
Sexual Communication Attitudes	.0179 (.0069) p = .0099	.0074 (.0033) p = .0260	.4327 (.0485) p < .0001	.0151 (.0067) p = .0249	.0028 (16%)	.41
Subjective Norms	.0179 (.0069) p = .0099	.0132 (.0056) p = .0181	.1658 (.0281) p < .0001	.0158 (.0068) p = .0204	.0021 (12%)	.30

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)