. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 May 1.

Published in final edited form as: Dev Psychopathol. 2017 Nov 20;30(2):695–713. doi: 10.1017/S0954579417001572

Table 3.

Final models of antecedents of dysregulation

Variable	Estimate	SE	p
Mother Reported Dysregulation
Intercept	1.42	0.12	<.001
Time (linear)	−0.11	0.03	<.001
Time (quadratic)	0.01	0^a	<.001
Predicting intercepts
Resistance to control	0.15	0.02	<.001
Predicting linear slopes
Peer acceptance	−0.03	0^a	<.001

Teacher Reported Dysregulation
Intercept	0.28	0.15	.058
Time (linear)	0.08	0.03	.014
Time (quadratic)^a	0^a	0^a	.044
Predicting intercepts
Resistance to control	0.05	0.02	.011
Predicting linear slopes
Peer acceptance	−0.04	0	<.001
Language ability	0^a	0^a	<.001

Max Score Dysregulation
Intercept	1.79	0.19	<.001
Time linear	−0.12	0.05	.016
Time quadratic	0.01	0^a	.029
Predicting intercepts
Resistance to control	0.16	0.03	<.001
Predicting intercepts
Harsh parenting	0^a	0.01	.571
Peer acceptance	−0.04	0.01	<.001
Language ability	0^a	0^a	<.001

The estimate for language ability predicting teacher-reported dysregulation (−0.001) was too small to be visible with two decimal places, as was the fixed quadratic effect for time (−0.004). For the maximum dysregulation score, the estimates for harsh parenting (0.004) and language ability (−0.001) were also too small to be visible with two decimal places. Predictors were added using forward selection. The model building process and summary of modeling decisions is outlined in online-only supplementary Table S.6.

Indicates a fixed effect.