Skip to main content

Table 4 Results of the latent growth model analyses comparing the treatment effectiveness of inconnection to care as usual

From: Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary treatment with youth-initiated mentoring for youths with mental health needs from multi-problem families: a quasi-experimental study

 

Intercept

Slope

Model fit indices

M

σ2

b (SE)

M

σ2

b (SE)

CFI

RMSEA

SRMR

Youth resilience (Y)

3.51**

0.15**

 

-0.03

0.01**

 

1.000

0.000

0.074

 Effect of condition

  

0.35 (0.11)**

  

0.02 (0.03)

   

Youth well-being (Y)

2.52**

0.54**

 

-0.04

0.02

 

1.000

0.000

0.031

 Effect of condition

  

0.37 (0.24)

  

0.02 (0.06)

   

Youth E/B problems (Y)1

0.70**

0.09**

 

-0.01

0.00

 

1.000

0.000

0.044

 Effect of condition

  

-0.07 (0.08)

  

-0.01 (0.01)

   

Youth E/B problems (P)

0.89**

0.12**

 

0.00

0.00

 

0.958

0.076

0.083

 Effect of condition

  

0.13 (0.10)

  

-0.05 (0.02)*

   

Risk of child unsafety (C)

5.20**

7.31**

 

-0.32**

0.10

 

0.972

0.064

0.079

 Effect of condition

  

-0.45 (0.66)

  

-0.02 (0.14)

   

Out-of-home placements (Y)1

0.14

0.05

 

0.01

0.00

 

0.851

0.075

0.095

 Effect of condition

  

0.04 (0.09)

  

-0.02 (0.02)

   

Parent-child relationship quality (Y)

2.77**

0.32**

 

0.02

0.00

 

0.972

0.073

0.077

 Effect of condition

  

0.16 (0.15)

  

-0.02 (0.03)

   

Parent-child relationship quality (P)1

3.16**

0.15**

 

-0.01

0.00

 

0.921

0.093

0.212

 Effect of condition

  

-0.07 (0.12)

  

0.03 (0.03)

   

Parental resilience (P)

4.12**

0.18**

 

-0.03

0.00

 

0.999

0.015

0.117

 Effect of condition

  

-0.10 (0.11)

  

0.03 (0.02)

   

Parental well-being (P)

3.02**

1.04**

 

-0.04

0.02

 

1.000

0.000

0.038

 Effect of condition

  

-0.03 (0.28)

  

-0.01 (0.06)

   

Parental empowerment (P)1

3.87**

0.14**

 

-0.02

0.00

 

0.989

0.039

0.064

 Effect of condition

  

0.02 (0.13)

  

0.05 (0.03)

   

Positive parenting (P)

4.18**

0.27**

 

-0.03

0.01*

 

1.000

0.000

0.070

 Effect of condition

  

-0.16 (0.15)

  

0.09 (0.03)**

   

Poor supervision (P)

2.40**

0.75**

 

0.05

0.01

 

0.978

0.067

0.075

 Effect of condition

  

-0.04 (0.27)

  

-0.06 (0.04)

   

Inconsistent discipline (P)

2.65**

0.44**

 

-0.03

0.01

 

1.000

0.000

0.061

 Effect of condition

  

0.03 (0.18)

  

-0.02 (0.04)

   

Social resourcefulness (Y)1

2.07**

0.30**

 

0.01

0.00

 

0.991

0.030

0.127

 Effect of condition

  

0.11 (0.13)

  

0.00 (0.03)

   

Shared-decision making (Y)1

6.04**

2.00**

 

0.01

0.00

 

1.000

0.000

0.079

 Effect of condition

  

1.23 (0.56)*

  

-0.03 (0.13)

   

Shared-decision making (P)1,2

7.71**

2.60*

 

-0.07

0.00

 

0.828

0.118

0.058

 Effect of condition

  

-0.50 (0.46)

  

0.28 (0.19)

   

Treatment motivation (Y)

3.76**

0.32**

 

-0.01

0.02*

 

1.000

0.000

0.072

 Effect of condition

  

-0.25 (0.15)

  

0.01 (0.15)

   
  1. Note. M = mean of intercept or slope; σ2 = variance of intercept or slope; b (SE) = regression coefficient (and standard error) of condition on intercept or slope; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; Y = reported by youth; P = reported by parents; C = reported by case managers; Youth E/B problems = Youth emotional/behavioral problems. Control group is the reference category (0).
  2. 1 Due to negative slope variance, we constrained the slope variance (> 0). The negative slope variance indicates that there is no variance to be explained by condition. Thus, we could not reliably estimate the influence of condition on the slope in these models, and any significant effects are ignored.
  3. 2 Due to the low number of parents at T4, we estimated this model using only T1, T2 and T3.
  4. * p < .05, ** p < .01
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us