Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Child Youth Serv Rev. 2022 Sep 17;143:106661. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106661

Table 5.

Significant indirect effects

Effect Point Estimate Externalizing (95% Bootstrapped CI) Point Estimate Internalizing (95% Bootstrapped CI)
Indirect Effect 1: Household Income Loss > Economic Pressure (M) > Depression (M) > Dysfunctional Dyadic Coping (M) > Harsh Parenting (M) > Adolescent Behavior .002 (.001, .011)
Italy-Rome: .005 (.001, .023)
US- European American: −.012 (−.090, − .001) 		N/A
Indirect Effect 2: Household Income Loss > Economic Pressure (F) > Depression (F) > Disengaged Parenting (M) > Adolescent Behavior N/A −.005 (−.018, −.001)
US-European American: −.019 (−.082, −.002)
Indirect Effect 3: Household Income Loss > Economic Pressure (M) > Depression (M) > Dysfunctional Dyadic Coping (M) > Disengaged Parenting (F) > Adolescent Behavior N/A .006 (.001, .019)
Italy-Rome: .013 (.001, .040)
Jordan: .026 (.007, .071)
US-European American: .001 (−.001, .009)
Low Household Income > Economic Pressure (M) > Depression (M) > Dysfunctional Dyadic Coping (M) > Disengaged Parenting (F) > Adolescent Behavior .004 (.001, .010)
Colombia: .013 (.002, .035)
Kenya: .001 (−.002, .005)
Philippines: .007 (.002, .019)
US-European American: .000 (.000, .005)
US-Hispanic: −.006 (−.018, .000)		 N/A

Note: When a site is specified, it means that the model fit significantly better allowing the coefficient in that site to be different from the other sites.