Table 4.
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis results for the prediction of caregiver satisfaction with and benefit of the assessment
| Predicting variables | Satisfaction | Benefit | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ΔR2 | β | ΔR2 | β | |
| Step 1: Background variables | .137*** | .084* | ||
| Referral source | −.10 | .01 | ||
| Caregiver’s gender | .04 | −.02 | ||
| Mother tongue | −.02 | −.03 | ||
| Socioeconomic status | .10 | .05 | ||
| Child’s age | −.05 | −.20** | ||
| Child’s psychosocial functioning | .07 | −.04 | ||
| Step 2: Specific experiences with neuropaediatric services | .416*** | .227*** | ||
| The clinicians easy to understand | .02 | −.04 | ||
| Confidence in the clinicians’ professional competence | .09 | −.05 | ||
| Confidence in the other staff’s professional skills | −.02 | .08 | ||
| Informed about how tests or examinations would be carried out | −.07 | .01 | ||
| Got sufficient information about the child’s diagnosis/afflictions | .05 | .17* | ||
| The treatment suited to the child’s situation | .48*** | .26** | ||
| Involvement in any decisions regarding the child’s treatment | .03 | .00 | ||
| Perceiving the clinic’s work as well organised | .07 | .14 | ||
| The clinic cooperated well with other public services | .21** | .10 | ||
| Total R2 | .553*** | .310*** | ||
Note. All β (standardised coefficients) were from the final model with all steps included. Referral source: 0 – specialist, 1 – general practitioner; gender: 0 – male, 1 – female; mother tongue: 0 – Norwegian, 1 – others; socioeconomic status: 0 – lower, 1 – higher; child’s psychosocial functioning measured by CGAS (Children’s Global Assessment Scale); *p < .05. **p < .01, ***p < .001 (two-tailed test)