What works for whom? Moderators in parental reflective functioning intervention

Figures & data

Table 1. Unconditional and conditional latent growth models for each outcome variable separately.

				a								b				c
				Unconditional Latent Growth Model								Conditional Latent Growth Model Including Probability of Membership in the “High Individual and Family Environment Difficulties” Class as Predictor
				△	SE	p		Intercept on △ (B)	SE	p		LCA class on Intercept (B)	SE	p			LCA class on △ (B)	SE	p
Parent
	Model 1	PDI- Self		0.09	0.05	0.050		−0.36	0.06	<0.001		−0.05	0.16	0.74			−0.02	0.09	0.844
	Model 2	PDI- Child		0.09	0.05	0.063		0.06	0.42	0.889		−0.13	0.15	0.40			0.03	0.09	0.719
	Model 3	MM Parent- Self-Related Comments		0.01	0.00	0.049		−0.24	0.22	0.284		0.02	0.01	0.14			−0.01	0.01	0.613
	Model 4	MM Parent Child-Appropriate Comments		0.01	0.01	0.322		−0.22	0.28	0.424		−0.00	0.02	0.80			−0.01	0.01	0.190
	Model 5	MM Parent-Nonattuned Comments		−0.00	0.00	0.052		−0.58	0.08	<0.001		0.00	0.00	0.84			−0.00	0.00	0.601
	Model 6	Parental Locus of Control		0.07	0.02	<0.001		0.27	0.36	0.454		−0.10	0.07	0.17			−0.10	0.04	0.018
	Model 7	Parental Sense of Competence		0.06	0.03	0.021		0.00	0.20	0.998		−0.52	0.12	<0.001			0.02	0.06	0.762
Child
	Model 8	Child Behavioral and Emotional Problems		−0.04	0.01	0.002		−0.05	0.15	0.742		0.20	0.05	<0.001			−0.05	0.02	0.041
	Model 9	Child Social Skills		0.07	0.01	<0.001		0.01	0.14	0.945		−0.22	0.06	<0.001			0.04	0.02	0.139
	Model 10	Child Self-Regulation Strategies		0.04	0.01	0.001		−0.48	0.05	<0.001		0.00	0.05	1.00			0.02	0.02	0.370
	Model 11	Child Self-Distraction Strategies		0.49	0.18	0.006		−0.76	0.13	<0.001		0.09	0.61	0.89			0.53	0.34	0.116
Parent-Child Interaction
	Model 12	Parental Sensitivity		0.13	0.06	0.032		0.10	0.37	0.794		−0.36	0.26	0.15			0.25	0.12	0.040

Note. PDI = Parent Development Interview; MM = Mind-Mindedness.

Figure 1. Posthoc analyses for significant associations between latent growth model intercept and change.

Table 2. Latent class analysis: identifying the optimal number of latent classes.

	Fit Indices				Class Size: Proportion Participants in Each Class					Classification Probability: Most Likely Latent Class Membership
	Entropy	BIC	AIC	LMRL	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5
Class solution
1 class	/	1112	1080	/	1.00					1.00
2 classes	0.83	1010	959	−528	0.32	0.68				0.93	0.96
3 classes	0.92	957	887	−460*	0.01	0.72	0.27			0.97	0.98	0.92
4 classes	0.91	955	866	−417	0.29	0.01	0.09	0.62		0.92	0.97	0.92	0.96
5 classes	0.93	956	848	−400	0.29	0.03	0.61	0.06	0.01	0.94	0.98	0.97	0.89	0.97

Note. * p < .01; “Fit indices” indicate how well each class solution fits the data; “Classification probability: Most likely latent class membership” indicates, per class solution, for each class, the probability of class membership, thereby identifying homogeneity within each class. BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; LMRL = Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test.

Figure 2. Three-class solution (class 1 and class 2, without class 3): Z-scores for individual characteristics and family environment measures per class and change.

Table 3. Descriptive data for the two main classes separately.

			“clinical” cut-off	First Class Mean (low distress)	Second Class Mean (high distress)	Difference Statistic
Variables Included in Latent Class Analysis
	Parental Depression		0.8 and above^1	0.53 (0.29)	1.20 (0.34)	t(103)=-9.96; p < 0.001
	Parental State Anxiety		2 and above^2	1.56 (0.40)	2.16 (0.51)	t(103)=-6.37; p < 0.001
	Parental Stress		2.80 and above (85th percentile)^3	2.12 (0.20)	2.77 (0.51)	t(101)=-6.68; p < 0.001
	Parental Emotion Regulation		2.22 and above^4	1.78 (0.36)	2.36 (0.49)	t(105)=-6.58; p < 0.001
	Marital Dissatisfaction		3.50 and below^5	2.09 (0.40)	3.07 (0.75)	t(28.6)=-6.23; p < 0.001
	Home Chaos		2.5 and above (75th percentile)^6	1.91 (0.58)	2.53 (0.46)	t(103)=-5.12; p < 0.001
Demographic Data
	Child’s Age (Years)			3.98 (1.71)	4.04 (1.46)	t(87)=-0.12; p = 0.905
	Mother’s Age (Years)			33.8 (4.52)	34.9 (4.28)	t(99)=-1.04; p = 0.299
	Father’s Age (Years)			36.0 (4.88)	36.1 (3.15)	t(90)=-1.09; p = 0.914
	Days Between T1 and T2 Data Collection			143.9 (97.78)	128.2 (64.97)	t(19)=-0.33; p = 0.743
	Days Between T2 and T3 Data Collection			184.3 (42.20)	179.5 (18.63)	t(18)=-0.22; p = 0.829
	Child’s Gender					χ2(1) = 0.000; p = 0.993
		Boy		48.1%	48.0%
		Girl		51.9%	52.0%
	Recruitment Type					χ2(1) = 0.686; p = 0.408
		Clinic		38.5%	29.2%
		General Population		61.5%	70.8%
	Mother’s Place of Birth					χ2(1) = 0.129; p = 0.720
		Israel		78.5%	75.0%
		Other		21.5%	25.0%
	Father’s Place of Birth					χ2(1) = 3.064; p = 0.080
		Israel		77.9%	95.0%
		Other		22.1%	5.0%
	Mother’s Education					χ2(3) = 6.281; p = 0.099
		8–12 Years of Education		11.5%	25.0%
		High School Education		12.8%	12.5%
		Higher Education		75.6%	58.3%
		Other		0.0%	4.2%
	Father’s Education					χ2(2) = 4.176; p = 0.124
		8–12 Years of Education		16.9%	35.0%
		High School Education		16.9%	5.0%
		Higher Education		66.2%	60.0%
		Other		0.0%	0.0%
	Family Constellation					χ2(2) = 6.373; p = 0.041
		Married		98.7%	88.0%
		Divorced		0.0%	4.0%
		Single		1.3%	8.0%
	Birth Order					χ2(3) = 4.052; p = 0.256
		First child		67.1%	63.2%
		Second child		20.5%	36.8%
		Third child		8.2%	0.0%
		Fourth child		4.1%	0.0%
	Family Religion
		Jewish		100.0%	100.0%	NA
		Other		0.0%	0.0%

Note. Mean score above or below (respectively) cut-off point. ¹(Thomas et al., 2001); ²(Vigneau & Cormier, 2008); ³(Abidin, 1990); ⁴(Haynos et al., 2015); ⁵(Spanier, 1976a); ⁶None.

Figure 3. Posthoc analyses for significant associations between LCA class membership and change.

Thomas, J. L., Jones, G. N., Scarinci, I. C., Mehan, D. J., & Brantley, P. J. (2001). The utility of the CES-D as a depression screening measure among low-income women attending primary care clinics. The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 31(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.2190/FUFR-PK9F-6U10-JXRK

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vigneau, F., & Cormier, S. (2008). The factor structure of the state-trait anxiety inventory: An alternative view. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(3), 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701885027

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Abidin. (1990). Parenting stress index-short form ( p. 118). Pediatric Psychology Press.

 Google Scholar

Haynos, A. F., Roberto, C. A., & Attia, E. (2015). Examining the associations between emotion regulation difficulties, anxiety, and eating disorder severity among inpatients with anorexia nervosa. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 60, 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2015.03.004

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Spanier, G. B. (1976a). Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 38(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/350547

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.