Table 3.
Observed parent and child behavior and masked observer ratings at the baseline and post-treatment assessments
| Variable | Alex | Sophia | Olivia | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Post | Baseline | Post | Baseline | Post | |
| Praise | 0.5 | 1 | 2.5 | 2 | 12.5 | 27 |
| Negative Talk | 2 | 0 | 5.5 | 0.5 | 2.5 | 0 |
| Commands | 13 | 2 | 21 | 17.5 | 25.5 | 18.5 |
| Child Compliance | 4 | 1 | 8.5 | 14.5 | 19 | 17 |
| Child Noncompliance | 5.5 | 0 | 8 | 0.5 | .5 | 0 |
| Percent Compliance | 42 | 100 | 52 | 97 | 97 | 100 |
| DBR Academic Engagement | 55.50 | 100 | 33.50 | 86.5 | 71.00 | 94.50 |
| DBR Respectful | 69.00 | 99.50 | 52.00 | 82.00 | 60.0 | 96.50 |
| DBR Disruptive | 35.00 | 0 | 81.50 | 15.50 | 45.50 | 5.00 |
| Parental Warmth and Responsiveness | 71.00 | 95.00 | 40.00 | 87.00 | 79.00 | 99.00 |
DBR Direct Behavior Rating. Observations were 15-min and conducted via Zoom. Praise, Negative Talk, Commands, Compliance, and Noncompliance are count variables and were coded according to the Dyadic Parent Child Interaction Coding System- 3rd edition (DPICS-III; Eyberg, et al., 2009). Percent compliance was calculated by dividing compliance by opportunities for compliance (i.e., compliance + noncompliance). DBR ratings indicate the percent of time in the past 15 min that the child was academically engaged, respectful, and disruptive, respectively. Observations were fully double-coded by two masked coders. Due to full double-coding, averages across the two codes are displayed resulting in decimals for some count variables