Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Fam Process. 2018 Oct 19;58(4):873–890. doi: 10.1111/famp.12399

Table 2.

Effects of supervision condition on parent report of youth externalizing (CBCL) for clients above and below clinical thresholds at baseline assessments.

Condition × CBCL
Externalizing
Clinical Threshold
Assessment Point Effect Size (d)
Baseline
M (SD)
5 Months
M (SD)
12 Months
M (SD)
t0 to t5 to t12
SAU-Below (SB) 7.13 (3.88) 6.23 (7.27) 5.60 (6.36) 0.20 0.34
BOOST Below (BB) 8.94 (4.62) 8.19 (7.26) 7.80 (8.42) 0.17 0.26
SAU Above (SA) 27.09 (8.26) 18.36 (11.44) 22.34 (14.86) 0.99 0.54
BOOST Above (BA) 27.80 (9.07) 19.71 (10.62) 21.37 (14.02) 0.92 0.73
d = (SB- BB) −0.41 −0.44 −0.49 0.03 0.09
d = (SA – BA) −0.08 −0.15 0.11 0.07 −0.19

Note: Cell entries are the means (M) or standard deviations (SD) for the externalizing measure. The effect size estimates are based upon Cohen’s d criteria and compare change from baseline (t0) to the fifth (t5) or the 12th (t12) month. The denominator was the baseline composite for clients below (SD = 4.46) or above (SD = 8.79) clinical thresholds. The bottom rows reports the effect size differences between the SAU and BOOST conditions at each assessment point for clients that are either above (A) or below (B) the clinical threshold. The baseline sample sizes were SB = 21; BB = 37; SA = 38; BA = 68.