There are errors in the values presented in Tables 2, 3 and 4. A number of symbols are present that are incorrect. Please see the correct Tables 2, 3 and 4 here.
Table 2. Hierarchical regression analyses for abuse and neglect testing intergenerational transmission from the perspective of one reporter.
| B | SE(B) | β | t | Sig. (p) | F | Sig. (p) | R2 | ΔR2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable: Perpetrated Abuse | |||||||||
| Step 1 | 1.38 | .25 | 2% | ||||||
| Gender | -0.02 | 0.12 | -0.01 | -0.19 | .85 | ||||
| Age | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.10 | .92 | ||||
| SES | -0.10 | 0.08 | -0.07 | -1.19 | .23 | ||||
| Step 2 | 15.61 | < .001 | 25% | 23% | |||||
| Experienced Abuse | 0.36 | 0.05 | 0.47 | 7.56 | < .001 | ||||
| Dependent variable: Perpetrated Neglect | |||||||||
| Step 1 | 8.16 | < .001 | 12% | ||||||
| Gender | -0.40 | 0.14 | -0.17 | -2.94 | < .001 | ||||
| Age | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.37 | 1.52 | .13 | ||||
| SES | 0.27 | 0.10 | 0.15 | 2.81 | .01 | ||||
| Step 2 | 10.59 | < .001 | 19% | 7% | |||||
| Experienced Neglect | 0.21 | 0.05 | 0.28 | 3.99 | < .001 | ||||
Note. The displayed coefficients of the variables in Step 1 and 2 represent the values after inclusion of variables in Step 3. Persp. = perspective
Table 3. Hierarchical regression analyses for abuse and neglect testing intergenerational transmission using different reporters of experienced maltreatment for the perspective of each generation.
| B | SE(B) | β | t | Sig. (p) | F | Sig. (p) | R2 | ΔR2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable: Perpetrated Abuse | |||||||||
| Step 1 | 0.82 | .49 | 2% | ||||||
| Gender | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.03 | 0.35 | .73 | ||||
| Age | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.13 | 0.91 | .37 | ||||
| SES | 0.00 | 0.11 | -0.02 | -0.02 | .98 | ||||
| Step 2 | .02 | 8% | 6% | ||||||
| Experienced Abuse | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.27 | 3.34 | < .001 | ||||
| Dependent variable: Perpetrated Neglect | |||||||||
| Step 1 | 2.93 | .04 | 6% | ||||||
| Gender | -0.41 | 0.17 | -0.20 | -2.44 | .02 | ||||
| Age | -0.01 | 0.01 | -0.13 | -0.75 | .45 | ||||
| SES | -0.22 | 0.12 | -0.15 | -1.78 | .08 | ||||
| Step 2 | .07 | 6% | 0% | ||||||
| Experienced Neglect | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.07 | .94 | ||||
Note. The displayed coefficients of the variables in Step 1 and 2 represent the values after inclusion of variables in Step 3. Persp. = perspective
Table 4. Hierarchical regression analyses for abuse and neglect using a multi-informant approach.
| B | SE(B) | β | t | Sig. (p) | F | Sig. (p) | R2 | ΔR2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable: Perpetrated Abuse | |||||||||
| Step 1 | 1.40 | .24 | 3% | ||||||
| Gender | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.04 | .97 | ||||
| Age | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.78 | .44 | ||||
| SES | -0.06 | 0.08 | -0.05 | -0.69 | .49 | ||||
| Step 2 | 4.78 | .001 | 12% | 9% | |||||
| Reporter convergence | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.30 | 3.68 | < .001 | ||||
| Step 3 | 5.13 | < .001 | 24% | 12% | |||||
| Mother report | -0.06 | 0.13 | -0.05 | -0.47 | .64 | ||||
| Father vs. child report | -0.42 | 0.13 | -0.34 | -3.27 | .001 | ||||
| Dependent variable: Perpetrated Neglect | |||||||||
| Step 1 | 3.54 | .02 | 5% | ||||||
| Gender | -0.40 | 0.13 | 0.23 | -3.13 | .002 | ||||
| Age | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.14 | 0.04 | .97 | ||||
| SES | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.23 | .82 | ||||
| Step 2 | 2.31 | .06 | 6% | 1% | |||||
| Reporter convergence | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.64 | .53 | ||||
| Step 3 | 1.41 | .21 | 10% | 4%. | |||||
| Child report | 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 1.56 | .12 | ||||
| Mother vs. father report | 0.12 | 0.20 | 0.08 | 0.58 | .56 | ||||
Note. The displayed coefficients of the variables in Step 1 and 2 represent the values after inclusion of variables in Step 3.
Reference
- 1.Buisman RSM, Pittner K, Tollenaar MS, Lindenberg J, van den Berg LJM, Compier-de Block LHCG, et al. (2020) Intergenerational transmission of child maltreatment using a multi-informant multi-generation family design. PLoS ONE 15(3): e0225839 10.1371/journal.pone.0225839 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]