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

Published in final edited form as: Infancy. 2018 Sep 28;24(1):101–109. doi: 10.1111/infa.12265

Table 4.

Effect of care-schedule, maternal education, and child gender on productive vocabulary (CDI, noun-types, noun-tokens). Columns 2–5 show descriptive statistics (M(SD)) for our full sample (Col. 2) and three care-schedule groups (Col. 3–5). Column 6 shows ANOVA results of model comparisons between a model with our main effect + predictors (care-schedule + sex+PVT or education) and a null model with predictors only (PVT or education + sex). Column 7 shows BF₁₀ for each model. All tests were conducted on log-transformed data; M(SD) is presented untransformed for interpretive clarity.

		M	M_Home-Only	M_Mixed-Care	M_Care-Only	ANOVA	BF₁₀
CDI	caretype	56.05(72.2)	21.42(14.2)	109.73(106.1)	44.4(46.3)	F(2,35)=4.04, p=.03^*	2.41
	caretype+sex+PVT					F(2,35)=4.25, p=.02^*	3.03
	caretype+sex+ed					F(2,31)=2.65, p=.21	1.5
Noun-Types	caretype	9.3(14.3)	6.5(7.5)	17.9(19.5)	5.8(12.7)	F(2,41)=6.37, p<.01^**	10.67
	caretype+sex+PVT					F(2,41)=4.14, p=.02^*	2.74
	caretype+sex+ed					F(2,37)=5.28, p<.01^**	8.1
Noun-Tokens	caretype	41.8(59.9)	29.3(36.3)	89.5(81.5)	19.2(39.2)	F(2,41)=8.48, p<.001^***	38.64
	caretype+sex+PVT					F(2,41)=6.25, p<.01^**	10.9
	caretype+sex+ed					F(2,37)=9.08, p<.001^***	40.93

p < .05

^**

p < .01

^***

p < .001