Skip Navigation

Brought to you by: Stanford University Libraries Sign In as Personal Subscriber
Right arrow Return to article


TABLE 8. Regression Analysis of Effect Size on Crisis Intervention Treatment Type and Research Methods Controls

Model A regression

Model B regression

Name of variable

Coefficient (SE)

t value

Coefficient (SE)

t value


Location 0.062 (0.067) 0.132 –0.149 (0.447) –0.333
Year of study –0.002 (0.028) –0.083 0.014 (0.027) 0.511
Sample size 0.000 (0.001) 0.436 –0.000 (0.001) –0.106
Statistic method –0.312 (0.580) –0.537 –0.109 (0.571) –0.191
Experimental design 0.157 (0.564) 0.278 0.619 (0.497) 1.249
Quasi-experimental design 0.048 (0.477) 0.101 0.058 (0.475) 0.122
Family preservation 1.10 (0.679) 1.624 1.068* (0.514) 2.079
Crisis debriefing 0.311 (0.425) 0.635
Multisession crisis intervention or CISM 1.381 (0.894) 1.545
Follow-up period 0.003 (0.036) 0.082 0.036 (0.031) 1.174
    Adjusted R2

0.17



0.14



Note. Interpretation of significant effect: family preservation treatment increases the average effect size by 1.1 standard deviation units. SE = standard error; CISM = critical incident stress management.





Right arrow Return to article