Table 1.
Study Variables | Class 1 | Class 2 | Class 3 | Class 4 | Chi-Square Test (χ2) or Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intervention | 47.9% Control, 52.1% FCU | 59.0% Control, 41.0% FCU | 53.8% Control, 46.2% FCU | 48.0% Control, 52.0% FCU | χ2 (3) = 2.344, p = .504 |
Geographic Location | 54.2% Pittsburgh, 33.3% Eugene, 12.5% Charlottesville | 56.4% Pittsburgh, 23.1% Eugene, 20.5% Charlottesville | 42.3% Pittsburgh, 38.5% Eugene, 19.2% Charlottesville | 34.6% Pittsburgh, 36.8% Eugene, 28.6% Charlottesville | Pittsburgh vs. Non-Pittsburgh: χ2 (3) = 12.817, p < .01 |
Child Gender | 58.3% Boys, 41.7% Girls | 61.5% Boys, 38.5% Girls | 60.3% Boys, 39.7% Girls | 46.6% Boys, 53.4% Girls | χ2 (3) = 8.183, p = .042 |
Child Inhibitory Control Age 2 (Parent-Report) | 3.78 (0.77)1 < 4 | 3.77 (0.91)2 < 4 | 3.61 (0.75)3 < 4 | 4.13 (0.75)4 > 1,2,3 | F (3, 507) = 12.29, p < .001a |
Child Behavioral Inhibition Age 2 (Observation) | 2.18 (0.44) | 2.29 (0.61) | 2.10 (0.67) | 2.13 (0.60) | F (3, 487) = 1.022, p = .382 |
Parental Depressive Symptoms Age 2 (Parent-Report) | 21.94 (12.03)1 > 4 | 20.02 (10.43) | 17.53 (10.35) | 15.89 (10.23)4 < 1 | F (3, 513) = 6.052, p < .001a |
Positive Behavior Support Age 2 (Observation) | 5.91 (1.17) | 5.80 (0.91) | 5.72 (1.03) | 6.06 (1.04) | F (3, 512) = 2.84, p < .05a |
Harsh Parenting (Observation) | 0.27 (0.89)1 > 4 | 0.16 (0.67) | 0.14 (0.79)3 > 4 | −0.08 (0.69)4 < 1, 3 | F (3, 439) = 6.534, p < .001a |
Neighborhood Deprivation Age 2 (US Census Data) | 0.45 (0.74) | 0.38 (0.83) | 0.29 (0.63) | 0.36 (0.73) | F (3, 493) = 0.461 p = .709 |
Dopamine Risk Proportion | 0.20 (0.03) | 0.19 (0.04) | 0.18 (0.03) | 0.19 (0.03) | F (3, 514) = 2.431 p = .064 |
Note: FCU = Family Check-Up; Means (standard deviations) are provided in columns with corresponding F-tests. Superscript numbers denote significant differences in mean scores between conduct problems classes, ps < .05.