Manual

Conners 4 Manual

Chapter 10: Fairness, Tables

print this section

Click to expand

Table 10.1. Measurement Invariance by Gender: Conners 4 Parent

Scales

Model

χ2

df

RMSEA

CFI

TLI

SRMR

Comparison

Satorra-Bentler χ2

df

∆CFI

Content Scales

Configural

12632.05***

3274

.042

.969

.967

.040

—

Threshold

12720.44***

3333

.042

.969

.968

.040

configural v. threshold

78.53*

59

.000

Loading

12699.78***

3386

.041

.969

.969

.040

threshold v. loading

85.00**

53

.000

Intercept

12831.59***

3439

.041

.969

.969

.040

loading v. intercept

281.95***

53

.000

Impairment &
Functional
Outcome Scales

Configural

2364.94***

298

.065

.980

.977

.044

—

Threshold

2417.30***

317

.064

.980

.978

.044

configural v. threshold

11.54

19

.000

Loading

2379.56***

333

.062

.981

.980

.044

threshold v. loading

20.28

16

.001

Intercept

2351.25***

349

.059

.981

.981

.044

loading v. intercept

33.19**

16

.000

DSM Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

949.39***

70

.088

.980

.974

.038

—

Threshold

985.38***

80

.084

.980

.977

.038

configural v. threshold

5.34

10

.000

Loading

942.70***

89

.077

.981

.981

.038

threshold v. loading

8.05

9

.001

Intercept

884.31***

98

.070

.982

.984

.038

loading v. intercept

12.07

9

.001

DSM Conduct Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

1219.26***

180

.060

.964

.958

.080

—

Threshold

1259.88***

195

.058

.963

.960

.080

configural v. threshold

15.67

15

.001

Loading

1245.62***

209

.055

.964

.964

.080

threshold v. loading

16.17

14

.001

Intercept

1112.03***

223

.050

.969

.971

.080

loading v. intercept

21.14

14

.005

Note. N = 1,705 males; N = 1,539 females. RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; ∆CFI = change in CFI. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Click to expand

Table 10.2. Measurement Invariance by Gender: Conners 4 Teacher

Scales

Model

χ2

df

RMSEA

CFI

TLI

SRMR

Comparison

Satorra-Bentler χ2

df

∆CFI

Content Scales

Configural

14556.81***

3274

.049

.964

.963

.053

—

Threshold

14643.71***

3333

.049

.964

.963

.053

configural v. threshold

62.02

59

.000

Loading

14578.55***

3386

.048

.964

.964

.053

threshold v. loading

67.82

53

.000

Intercept

14514.18***

3439

.047

.965

.965

.053

loading v. intercept

216.76***

53

.001

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Configural

1457.23***

106

.094

.979

.974

.055

—

Threshold

1537.77***

118

.092

.978

.975

.055

configural v. threshold

34.24**

12

.001

Loading

1544.13***

128

.088

.978

.977

.055

threshold v. loading

15.51

10

.000

Intercept

1607.12***

138

.086

.977

.978

.055

loading v. intercept

71.53***

10

.001

DSM Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

1047.94***

70

.099

.985

.980

.037

—

Threshold

1092.69***

80

.094

.984

.982

.037

configural v. threshold

12.76

10

.001

Loading

1064.38***

89

.087

.985

.985

.037

threshold v. loading

5.69

9

.001

Intercept

1067.34***

98

.083

.985

.986

.037

loading v. intercept

53.28***

9

.000

DSM Conduct Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

916.88***

130

.065

.963

.955

.111

—

Threshold

949.97***

143

.063

.962

.958

.111

configural v. threshold

8.51

13

.001

Loading

921.39***

155

.059

.964

.964

.111

threshold v. loading

8.88

12

.002

Intercept

806.74***

167

.052

.970

.972

.112

loading v. intercept

16.66

12

.006

Note. N = 1,473 males; N = 1,404 females. RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; ∆CFI = change in CFI. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Click to expand

Table 10.3. Measurement Invariance by Gender: Conners 4 Self-Report Scales Model χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR Comparison Satorra-Bentler χ2 df ∆CFI

Scales

Model

χ2

df

RMSEA

CFI

TLI

SRMR

Comparison

Satorra-Bentler χ2

df

∆CFI

Content Scales

Configural

7142.83***

3390

.037

.956

.954

.051

—

Threshold

7213.38***

3450

.037

.956

.955

.051

configural v. threshold

69.33

60

.000

Loading

7189.31***

3504

.036

.957

.956

.051

threshold v. loading

60.12

54

.001

Intercept

7266.83***

3558

.036

.956

.957

.051

loading v. intercept

165.33***

54

.001

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Configural

1301.77***

298

.065

.945

.937

.065

—

Threshold

1342.24***

317

.064

.944

.940

.065

configural v. threshold

22.48

19

.001

Loading

1315.20***

333

.061

.946

.945

.065

threshold v. loading

30.58*

16

.002

Intercept

1404.73***

349

.062

.942

.944

.066

loading v. intercept

95.42***

16

.004

DSM Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptom Scale

Configural

615.73***

70

.099

.942

.926

.066

—

Threshold

645.42***

80

.095

.94

.933

.066

configural v. threshold

5.22

10

.002

Loading

601.67***

89

.085

.946

.945

.067

threshold v. loading

11.09

9

.006

Intercept

597.72***

98

.080

.947

.951

.067

loading v. intercept

26.87**

9

.001

DSM Conduct Disorder Symptom Scale

Configural

595.10***

180

.054

.946

.937

.091

—

Threshold

616.51***

194

.052

.945

.940

.091

configural v. threshold

13.70

14

.001

Loading

601.42***

208

.049

.949

.948

.091

threshold v. loading

9.94

14

.004

Intercept

558.75***

222

.044

.956

.958

.094

loading v. intercept

21.34

14

.007

Note. N = 788 males; N = 796 females. RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; ∆CFI = change in CFI. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Click to expand

Table 10.4. Differential Test Functioning Effect Sizes by Gender

Scale

Parent

Teacher

Self-Report

Content Scales

Inattention/Executive Dysfunction

.00

.01

−.02

Hyperactivity

.02

.06

.01

Impulsivity

.01

.00

−.03

Emotional Dysregulation

.01

.01

−.08

Depressed Mood

−.01

.01

−.02

Anxious Thoughts

−.02

−.03

−.03

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Schoolwork

−.03

−.05

−.03

Peer Interactions

.01

−.08

.05

Family Life

−.03

—

−.12

DSM Symptom Scales

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms

−.01

.00

.10

Conduct Disorder Symptoms

−.01

−.23

.01

Note. Values presented are expected test score standardized differences (ETSSD); guidelines for interpreting |ETSSD|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. Positive ETSSD values indicate that female youth received higher scores than male youth who had the same level of the construct being measured.

Click to expand
Click to expand
Click to expand
Click to expand

Table 10.8. Measurement Invariance U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Hispanic): Conners 4 Parent

Scales

Model

χ2

df

RMSEA

CFI

TLI

SRMR

Comparison

Satorra-Bentler χ2

df

∆CFI

Content Scales

Configural

9110.26***

3274

.040

.974

.973

.042

—

Threshold

9158.18***

3333

.039

.975

.974

.042

configural v. threshold

63.07

59

.001

Loading

9095.52***

3386

.039

.975

.975

.042

threshold v. loading

52.56

53

.000

Intercept

9019.27***

3439

.038

.976

.976

.042

loading v. intercept

86.53**

53

.001

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Configural

1751.44***

298

.066

.982

.980

.045

—

Threshold

1788.04***

317

.064

.982

.981

.045

configural v. threshold

19.89

19

.000

Loading

1759.53***

333

.062

.983

.982

.045

threshold v. loading

21.86

16

.001

Intercept

1713.73***

349

.059

.983

.984

.046

loading v. intercept

30.26*

16

.000

DSM Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

660.92***

70

.087

.982

.977

.038

—

Threshold

680.33***

80

.082

.982

.979

.038

configural v. threshold

7.93

10

.000

Loading

638.92***

89

.074

.983

.983

.038

threshold v. loading

8.18

9

.001

Intercept

609.47***

98

.068

.984

.986

.039

loading v. intercept

19.49*

9

.001

DSM Conduct Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

787.31***

180

.055

.971

.966

.076

—

Threshold

812.44***

195

.053

.971

.968

.076

configural v. threshold

15.32

15

.000

Loading

798.18***

209

.050

.972

.972

.076

threshold v. loading

14.83

14

.001

Intercept

707.97***

223

.044

.977

.978

.076

loading v. intercept

14.04

14

.005

Note. N = 520 Hispanic youth; N = 1,727 White youth. RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; ∆CFI = change in CFI. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Click to expand

Table 10.9. Measurement Invariance by U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Hispanic): Conners 4 Teacher

Scales

Model

χ2

df

RMSEA

CFI

TLI

SRMR

Comparison

Satorra-Bentler χ2

df

∆CFI

Content Scales

Configural

9932.68***

3274

.046

.969

.968

.054

—

Threshold

9983.78***

3333

.045

.970

.969

.054

configural v. threshold

61.16

59

.001

Loading

9927.18***

3386

.044

.970

.970

.054

threshold v. loading

58.39

53

.000

Intercept

9754.35***

3439

.043

.971

.971

.054

loading v. intercept

72.88*

53

.001

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Configural

881.43***

106

.087

.984

.980

.052

—

Threshold

917.16***

118

.083

.984

.982

.052

configural v. threshold

12.52

12

.000

Loading

901.49***

128

.079

.984

.984

.052

threshold v. loading

10.61

10

.000

Intercept

883.86***

138

.074

.985

.985

.052

loading v. intercept

11.16

10

.001

DSM Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

695.40***

70

.096

.986

.982

.042

—

Threshold

720.91***

80

.091

.986

.984

.042

configural v. threshold

7.75

10

.000

Loading

689.30***

89

.083

.987

.987

.042

threshold v. loading

10.96

9

.001

Intercept

600.96***

98

.072

.989

.990

.042

loading v. intercept

7.38

9

.002

DSM Conduct Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

457.97***

130

.051

.975

.970

.115

—

Threshold

472.88***

139

.050

.975

.972

.115

configural v. threshold

11.67

9

.000

Loading

445.70***

151

.045

.978

.977

.118

threshold v. loading

13.50

12

.003

Intercept

456.46***

159

.044

.978

.978

.117

loading v. intercept

13.41

8

.000

Note. N = 411 Hispanic youth; N = 1,545 White youth. RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; ∆CFI = change in CFI. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Click to expand

Table 10.10. Measurement Invariance by U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Black): Conners 4 Parent

Scales

Model

χ2

df

RMSEA

CFI

TLI

SRMR

Comparison

Satorra-Bentler χ2

df

∆CFI

Content Scales

Configural

7948.80***

3274

.037

.975

.974

.044

—

Threshold

7986.59***

3333

.037

.975

.974

.044

configural v. threshold

67.97

59

.000

Loading

7946.09***

3386

.036

.975

.975

.044

threshold v. loading

65.65

53

.000

Intercept

7853.37***

3439

.036

.976

.976

.044

loading v. intercept

79.83*

53

.001

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Configural

1624.32***

298

.066

.983

.980

.048

—

Threshold

1646.85***

317

.064

.983

.981

.048

configural v. threshold

23.07

19

.000

Loading

1606.40***

333

.061

.983

.983

.048

threshold v. loading

21.66

16

.000

Intercept

1563.55***

349

.058

.984

.984

.048

loading v. intercept

32.62**

16

.001

DSM Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

600.33***

70

.086

.983

.978

.039

—

Threshold

619.63***

80

.081

.982

.980

.039

configural v. threshold

11.30

10

.001

Loading

612.51***

89

.076

.983

.983

.039

threshold v. loading

13.09

9

.001

Intercept

596.34***

98

.071

.984

.985

.039

loading v. intercept

14.33

9

.001

DSM Conduct Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

681.68***

180

.052

.974

.970

.083

—

Threshold

696.69***

194

.050

.974

.972

.083

configural v. threshold

12.56

14

.000

Loading

667.32***

208

.047

.977

.976

.083

threshold v. loading

15.27

14

.003

Intercept

594.27***

221

.041

.981

.982

.083

loading v. intercept

10.89

13

.004

Note. N = 312 Black youth; N = 1,727 White youth. RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; ∆CFI = change in CFI. * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001.

Click to expand

Table 10.11. Measurement Invariance by U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Black): Conners 4 Teacher

Scales

Model

χ2

df

RMSEA

CFI

TLI

SRMR

Comparison

Satorra-Bentler χ2

df

∆CFI

Content Scales

Configural

9766.24***

3274

.045

.970

.969

.054

—

Threshold

9818.22***

3333

.045

.970

.970

.054

configural v. threshold

55.42

59

.000

Loading

9798.50***

3386

.044

.971

.970

.054

threshold v. loading

78.03*

53

.001

Intercept

9732.96***

3439

.044

.971

.971

.054

loading v. intercept

103.61***

53

.000

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Configural

909.08***

106

.089

.983

.979

.049

—

Threshold

951.18***

118

.086

.982

.980

.049

configural v. threshold

14.38

12

.001

Loading

949.13***

128

.082

.982

.982

.049

threshold v. loading

9.10

10

.000

Intercept

993.80***

138

.080

.982

.983

.049

loading v. intercept

36.15***

10

.000

DSM Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

826.94***

70

.106

.985

.981

.041

—

Threshold

860.22***

80

.101

.985

.983

.041

configural v. threshold

5.95

10

.000

Loading

864.62***

89

.095

.985

.985

.041

threshold v. loading

10.14

9

.000

Intercept

830.89***

98

.088

.986

.987

.041

loading v. intercept

10.71

9

.001

DSM Conduct Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

548.95***

130

.058

.975

.970

.115

—

Threshold

572.46***

141

.056

.974

.971

.115

configural v. threshold

14.94

11

.001

Loading

565.47***

153

.053

.975

.975

.115

threshold v. loading

12.32

12

.001

Intercept

590.70***

164

.052

.974

.975

.118

loading v. intercept

39.57***

11

.001

Note. N = 376 Black youth; N = 1,545 White youth. RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; ∆CFI = change in CFI. * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001.

Click to expand

Table 10.12. Measurement Invariance by U.S. Race/Ethnicity (Hispanic/Black vs. White): Conners 4 Self-Report

Scales

Model

χ2

df

RMSEA

CFI

TLI

SRMR

Comparison

Satorra-Bentler χ2

df

∆CFI

Content Scales

Configural

6298.23***

3390

.037

.955

.953

.055

—

Threshold

6373.18***

3450

.037

.954

.953

.055

configural v. threshold

94.95**

60

.001

Loading

6414.82***

3504

.037

.955

.954

.055

threshold v. loading

103.69***

54

.001

Intercept

6394.55***

3558

.036

.956

.956

.055

loading v. intercept

75.24*

54

.001

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Configural

1095.85***

298

.066

.945

.936

.067

—

Threshold

1127.31***

317

.064

.944

.939

.067

configural v. threshold

16.37

19

.001

Loading

1160.22***

333

.063

.942

.941

.069

threshold v. loading

47.84***

16

.002

Intercept

1136.58***

349

.060

.945

.946

.070

loading v. intercept

23.28

16

.003

DSM Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

478.67***

70

.097

.947

.931

.065

—

Threshold

507.39***

80

.093

.944

.937

.065

configural v. threshold

12.61

10

.003

Loading

459.53***

89

.082

.952

.951

.065

threshold v. loading

3.36

9

.008

Intercept

425.50***

98

.073

.957

.961

.065

loading v. intercept

6.54

9

.005

DSM Conduct Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

454.47***

180

.049

.953

.945

.087

—

Threshold

470.69***

194

.048

.952

.948

.087

configural v. threshold

11.44

14

.001

Loading

467.13***

208

.045

.955

.955

.087

threshold v. loading

14.52

14

.003

Intercept

443.84***

222

.040

.962

.964

.091

loading v. intercept

18.57

14

.007

Note. N = 457 Black and Hispanic youth; N = 791 White youth. RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; ∆CFI = change in CFI. * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001.

Click to expand
Click to expand
Click to expand

Table 10.15. Group Differences by U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Hispanic): Conners 4 Teacher

Scale

White
(N = 150)

Hispanic
(N = 150)

Cohen’s d

F
(1, 298)

p

η2

Content Scales

Inattention/Executive
Dysfunction

M

48.7

49.8

−0.11

0.90

.345

.00

SD

9.3

10.7

Hyperactivity

M

49.9

50.0

−0.02

0.02

.895

.00

SD

9.3

10.7

Impulsivity

M

49.2

50.0

−0.08

0.50

.478

.00

SD

8.9

11.1

Emotional Dysregulation

M

48.6

50.9

−0.24

4.12

.043

.01

SD

7.8

11.1

Depressed Mood

M

48.9

50.8

−0.19

2.63

.106

.01

SD

7.8

12.1

Anxious Thoughts

M

49.0

50.5

−0.16

1.82

.178

.01

SD

8.3

11.7

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Schoolwork

M

48.0

50.6

−0.26

5.00

.026

.02

SD

9.8

10.3

Peer Interactions

M

48.6

50.1

−0.16

1.94

.165

.01

SD

8.9

10.7

DSM Symptom Scales

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms

M

48.4

50.7

−0.25

4.76

.030

.02

SD

7.4

10.2

Conduct Disorder Symptoms

M

49.2

49.8

−0.08

0.43

.511

.00

SD

8.0

8.1

Note. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .05; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates that ratings of White youth resulted in higher scores than ratings of Hispanic youth.

Click to expand
Click to expand
Click to expand

Table 10.18. Group Difference by U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Black): Conners 4 Teacher

Scale

White
(N = 192)

Black
(N = 192)

Cohen’s d

F
(1, 382)

p

η2

Content Scales

Inattention/Executive
Dysfunction

M

49.6

53.0

−0.35

11.50

.001

.03

SD

9.8

10.1

Hyperactivity

M

50.0

53.2

−0.30

8.70

.003

.02

SD

9.6

11.5

Impulsivity

M

49.8

53.8

−0.37

13.24

< .001

.03

SD

9.4

11.7

Emotional Dysregulation

M

50.3

53.2

−0.25

5.93

.015

.02

SD

10.3

12.5

Depressed Mood

M

50.7

51.0

−0.03

0.08

.774

.00

SD

9.8

11.1

Anxious Thoughts

M

50.8

49.5

0.14

1.81

.180

.00

SD

10.4

9.1

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Schoolwork

M

48.7

53.0

−0.43

17.65

< .001

.04

SD

9.6

10.2

Peer Interactions

M

50.4

52.2

−0.17

2.63

.106

.01

SD

10.3

11.5

DSM Symptom Scales

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms

M

50.2

54.0

−0.33

10.12

.002

.03

SD

9.8

13.3

Conduct Disorder Symptoms

M

49.9

52.8

−0.26

6.49

.011

.02

SD

8.7

12.7

Note. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .05; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates that ratings of White youth resulted in higher scores than ratings of Black youth.

Click to expand
Click to expand
Click to expand

Table 10.21. Group Differences by U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Asian): Conners 4 Teacher

Scale

White
(N = 43)

Asian
(N = 43)

Cohen’s d

F
(1, 84)

p

η2

Content Scales

Inattention/Executive
Dysfunction

M

47.7

45.8

0.22

1.07

.304

.01

SD

8.1

8.8

Hyperactivity

M

49.6

47.4

0.26

1.47

.228

.02

SD

9.5

7.4

Impulsivity

M

49.3

46.6

0.34

2.51

.117

.03

SD

9.0

7.0

Emotional Dysregulation

M

49.2

47.1

0.28

1.66

.201

.02

SD

7.5

7.4

Depressed Mood

M

48.5

47.7

0.09

0.18

.672

.00

SD

9.3

7.1

Anxious Thoughts

M

49.7

48.3

0.15

0.50

.481

.01

SD

10.2

8.6

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Schoolwork

M

46.6

45.2

0.17

0.61

.435

.01

SD

8.9

8.0

Peer Interactions

M

49.2

48.1

0.11

0.27

.607

.00

SD

10.1

8.0

DSM Symptom Scales

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms

M

48.5

46.9

0.24

1.23

.271

.01

SD

8.1

5.7

Conduct Disorder Symptoms

M

49.2

49.1

0.00

0.00

.989

.00

SD

7.7

9.8

Note. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .05; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates that ratings of White youth resulted in higher scores than ratings of Asian youth.

Click to expand
Click to expand

Table 10.23. Measurement Invariance by Country of Residence: Conners 4 Parent

Scales

Model

χ2

df

RMSEA

CFI

TLI

SRMR

Comparison

Satorra-Bentler χ2

df

∆CFI

Content Scales

Configural

10963.89***

3274

.038

.973

.972

.040

—

Threshold

10978.90***

3333

.038

.973

.973

.040

configural v. threshold

64.08

59

.000

Loading

10879.70***

3386

.037

.974

.974

.040

threshold v. loading

61.18

53

.001

Intercept

10756.99***

3439

.036

.975

.975

.040

loading v. intercept

76.58*

53

.001

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Configural

2117.22***

298

.062

.983

.980

.044

—

Threshold

2142.16***

317

.060

.983

.981

.044

configural v. threshold

20.86

19

.000

Loading

2064.74***

333

.057

.984

.983

.044

threshold v. loading

16.32

16

.001

Intercept

1972.51***

349

.054

.985

.985

.044

loading v. intercept

16.93

16

.001

DSM Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

835.04***

70

.082

.983

.978

.038

—

Threshold

868.99***

80

.078

.982

.980

.038

configural v. threshold

11.99

10

.001

Loading

805.67***

89

.071

.984

.984

.038

threshold v. loading

7.84

9

.002

Intercept

730.66***

98

.063

.986

.987

.038

loading v. intercept

7.33

9

.002

DSM Conduct Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

1018.57***

180

.054

.970

.966

.087

—

Threshold

1034.48***

193

.052

.970

.968

.087

configural v. threshold

11.96

13

.000

Loading

965.43***

207

.048

.973

.973

.087

threshold v. loading

12.39

14

.003

Intercept

857.32***

219

.043

.978

.978

.088

loading v. intercept

12.89

12

.005

Note. N = 2,838 Americans; N = 376 Canadians. RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; ∆CFI = change in CFI. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Click to expand

Table 10.24. Measurement Invariance by Country of Residence: Conners 4 Teacher

Scales

Model

χ2

df

RMSEA

CFI

TLI

SRMR

Comparison

Satorra-Bentler χ2

df

∆CFI

Content Scales

Configural

12248.98***

3274

.044

.971

.970

.052

—

Threshold

12231.60***

3333

.043

.972

.971

.052

configural v. threshold

60.41

59

.001

Loading

12087.58***

3386

.042

.972

.972

.052

threshold v. loading

66.61

53

.000

Intercept

11803.73***

3439

.041

.973

.974

.052

loading v. intercept

69.07

53

.001

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Configural

1426.14***

106

.093

.981

.976

.054

—

Threshold

1466.93***

118

.089

.980

.978

.054

configural v. threshold

13.63

12

.001

Loading

1410.26***

128

.084

.981

.981

.054

threshold v. loading

9.72

10

.001

Intercept

1350.45***

138

.078

.982

.983

.054

loading v. intercept

11.42

10

.001

DSM Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

992.76***

70

.096

.986

.982

.036

—

Threshold

989.52***

80

.089

.986

.985

.036

configural v. threshold

10.18

10

.000

Loading

926.14***

89

.081

.987

.987

.036

threshold v. loading

8.44

9

.001

Intercept

852.16***

98

.073

.989

.990

.036

loading v. intercept

11.36

9

.002

DSM Conduct Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

835.26***

130

.062

.967

.960

.109

—

Threshold

853.18***

142

.059

.967

.963

.109

configural v. threshold

10.14

12

.000

Loading

790.80***

154

.054

.970

.970

.109

threshold v. loading

10.97

12

.003

Intercept

747.30***

165

.050

.973

.974

.109

loading v. intercept

14.39

11

.003

Note. N = 2,563 Americans; N = 301 Canadians. RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; ∆CFI = change in CFI. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Click to expand

Table 10.25. Differential Test Functioning Effect Sizes by Country of Residence

Scale

Parent

Teacher

Self-Report

Content Scales

Inattention/Executive Dysfunction

−.01

.03

.00

Hyperactivity

.03

.01

.02

Impulsivity

.00

.01

−.04

Emotional Dysregulation

.01

−.01

.05

Depressed Mood

.01

−.06

−.05

Anxious Thoughts

−.01

−.01

.03

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Schoolwork

.01

−.04

.00

Peer Interactions

.03

.01

.00

Family Life

−.02

—

.01

DSM Symptom Scales

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms

.01

−.01

−.02

Conduct Disorder Symptoms

−.01

.03

.01

Note. Values presented are expected test score standardized differences (ETSSD); guidelines for interpreting |ETSSD|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. Positive ETSSD values indicate that Canadian youth received higher scores than American youth who had the same level of the construct being measured.

Click to expand
Click to expand

Table 10.27. Group Differences by Country of Residence: Conners 4 Teacher

Scale

U.S.
(N = 119)

Canada
(N = 119)

Cohen’s d

F
(1, 236)

p

η2

Content Scales

Inattention/Executive
Dysfunction

M

49.2

48.6

0.06

0.21

.648

.00

SD

10.2

9.4

Hyperactivity

M

50.3

49.0

0.14

1.12

.291

.00

SD

9.8

9.1

Impulsivity

M

49.4

48.5

0.10

0.57

.453

.00

SD

9.2

9.0

Emotional Dysregulation

M

49.3

48.9

0.04

0.12

.734

.00

SD

8.6

9.4

Depressed Mood

M

50.1

49.5

0.06

0.21

.648

.00

SD

9.4

10.8

Anxious Thoughts

M

50.6

49.1

0.15

1.33

.250

.01

SD

9.5

10.2

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Schoolwork

M

48.3

48.7

−0.04

0.10

.752

.00

SD

10.4

9.2

Peer Interactions

M

49.1

49.0

0.01

0.01

.927

.00

SD

9.3

8.9

DSM Symptom Scales

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms

M

48.9

48.9

0.00

0.00

.998

.00

SD

8.2

8.7

Conduct Disorder Symptoms

M

49.5

50.4

−0.08

0.42

.518

.00

SD

8.6

13.5

Note. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .05; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates that ratings of American youth resulted in higher scores than ratings of Canadian youth.

Click to expand
Click to expand

Table 10.29. Measurement Invariance by Parental Education Level: Conners 4 Parent

Scales

Model

χ2

df

RMSEA

CFI

TLI

SRMR

Comparison

Satorra-Bentler χ2

df

∆CFI

Content Scales

Configural

12264.25***

3274

.041

.970

.968

.040

—

Threshold

12325.98***

3333

.041

.970

.969

.040

configural v. threshold

69.44

59

.000

Loading

12241.09***

3386

.040

.970

.970

.040

threshold v. loading

62.46

53

.000

Intercept

12252.05***

3439

.040

.970

.970

.041

loading v. intercept

179.92***

53

.000

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Configural

2356.76***

298

.065

.981

.978

.044

—

Threshold

2413.44***

317

.064

.980

.979

.044

configural v. threshold

26.96

19

.001

Loading

2363.96***

333

.061

.981

.981

.044

threshold v. loading

26.48*

16

.001

Intercept

2368.02***

349

.060

.981

.982

.045

loading v. intercept

56.25***

16

.000

DSM Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

968.17***

70

.089

.980

.974

.039

—

Threshold

1001.73***

80

.084

.979

.977

.039

configural v. threshold

9.50

10

.001

Loading

952.01***

89

.077

.981

.980

.039

threshold v. loading

8.91

9

.002

Intercept

918.53***

98

.072

.982

.983

.039

loading v. intercept

26.64**

9

.001

DSM Conduct Disorder Symptoms Scale

Configural

1191.07***

180

.059

.967

.961

.080

—

Threshold

1223.70***

195

.057

.966

.964

.080

configural v. threshold

17.11

15

.001

Loading

1226.59***

209

.055

.967

.967

.081

threshold v. loading

32.73**

14

.001

Intercept

1074.94***

223

.049

.972

.974

.081

loading v. intercept

20.82

14

.005

Note. N = 855 youth whose parents have a high school education or less (PEL 1 or PEL 2); N = 2,385 youth whose parents have a post-secondary education (PEL 3, PEL 4, or PEL 5). RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; ∆CFI = change in CFI. * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001.

Click to expand

Table 10.30. Measurement Invariance by Parental Education Level: Conners 4 Self-Report

Scales

Model

χ2

df

RMSEA

CFI

TLI

SRMR

Comparison

Satorra-Bentler χ2

df

∆CFI

Content Scales

Configural

7056.41***

3390

.037

.956

.954

.051

—

Threshold

7119.01***

3450

.037

.956

.955

.051

configural v. threshold

58.60

60

.000

Loading

7100.77***

3504

.036

.957

.956

.051

threshold v. loading

69.40

54

.001

Intercept

7081.25***

3558

.035

.958

.958

.051

loading v. intercept

87.12**

54

.001

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Configural

1269.45***

298

.064

.947

.939

.064

—

Threshold

1303.50***

317

.063

.946

.941

.064

configural v. threshold

14.78

19

.001

Loading

1251.52***

333

.059

.949

.948

.064

threshold v. loading

19.87

16

.003

Intercept

1203.01***

349

.056

.953

.954

.065

loading v. intercept

16.43

16

.004

DSM ODD
Symptoms Scale

Configural

624.32***

70

.100

.941

.925

.065

—

Threshold

659.13***

80

.096

.939

.931

.065

configural v. threshold

10.91

10

.002

Loading

600.51***

89

.085

.946

.945

.065

threshold v. loading

5.60

9

.007

Intercept

563.97***

98

.077

.951

.955

.065

loading v. intercept

11.02

9

.005

DSM CD
Symptoms Scale

Configural

571.25***

180

.052

.946

.937

.084

—

Threshold

593.97***

194

.051

.945

.940

.084

configural v. threshold

21.24

14

.001

Loading

576.54***

208

.047

.949

.948

.084

threshold v. loading

12.07

14

.004

Intercept

528.31***

222

.042

.958

.960

.086

loading v. intercept

16.83

14

.009

Note. N = 530 youth whose parents have a high school education or less (PEL 1 or PEL 2); N = 1,057 youth whose parents have a post-secondary education (PEL 3, PEL 4, or PEL 5). RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; ∆CFI = change in CFI. * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001.

Click to expand

Table 10.31. Differential Test Functioning Effect Sizes by Parental Education Level

Scale

Parent

Self-Report

Content Scales

Inattention/Executive Dysfunction

.03

−.02

Hyperactivity

−.04

.02

Impulsivity

.00

−.04

Emotional Dysregulation

.02

.05

Depressed Mood

−.02

−.04

Anxious Thoughts

.03

.03

Impairment & Functional
Outcome Scales

Schoolwork

.03

−.02

Peer Interactions

−.02

.00

Family Life

−.08

.04

DSM Symptom Scales

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms

.00

−.03

Conduct Disorder Symptoms

.00

.03

Note. Values presented are expected test score standardized differences (ETSSD); guidelines for interpreting |ETSSD|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80|. Positive ETSSD values indicate that higher scores would be observed for youth whose parents do not have post-secondary education (PEL 1 and PEL 2) relative to youth whose parents have post-secondary education (PEL 3, PEL 4, and PEL 5) with the same level of the construct being measured.

Click to expand

Table 10.32a. Group Differences by Parental Education Level: Conners 4 Parent

Scale

PEL 1
(N = 192)

PEL 2
(N = 412)

PEL 3
(N = 453)

PEL 4
(N = 309)

PEL 5
(N = 194)

F
(4, 1540)

p

Partial

η2

Significant
(p < .01) Tukey’s HSD Post Hoc
Test Results

Content Scales

Inattention/Executive
Dysfunction

EMM

56.0

54.7

55.3

54.7

54.8

0.88

.472

.00

—

SD

12.1

14.6

14.6

12.2

11.2

Hyperactivity

EMM

55.6

54.1

53.3

53.4

52.2

3.16

.013

.01

—

SD

12.7

15.4

15.3

12.8

11.8

Impulsivity

EMM

55.8

53.9

53.0

53.3

53.1

3.12

.014

.01

—

SD

12.6

15.2

15.2

12.7

11.7

Emotional
Dysregulation

EMM

54.7

53.6

52.8

52.9

53.1

1.49

.203

.00

—

SD

12.6

15.3

15.2

12.7

11.7

Depressed Mood

EMM

54.7

52.6

52.9

53.2

53.1

1.58

.178

.00

—

SD

12.8

15.5

15.5

12.9

11.9

Anxious Thoughts

EMM

54.7

53.3

52.8

53.8

52.9

1.49

.204

.00

—

SD

12.8

15.5

15.5

12.9

11.9

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Schoolwork

EMM

56.1

54.0

54.6

53.4

53.2

3.16

.014

.01

—

SD

12.3

14.9

14.9

12.4

11.4

Peer
Interactions

EMM

56.6

53.8

52.9

53.9

53.4

4.89

.001

.01

PEL 1 > PEL 3

SD

12.5

15.2

15.1

12.6

11.6

Family Life

EMM

55.9

53.7

53.6

53.7

54.6

2.34

.053

.01

—

SD

12.5

15.1

15.0

12.6

11.6

DSM Symptom Scales

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms

EMM

54.8

53.1

52.8

52.5

53.7

1.89

.109

.00

—

SD

12.7

15.4

15.4

12.8

11.8

Conduct
Disorder
Symptoms

EMM

54.7

50.7

50.1

50.9

50.8

7.14

< .001

.02

PEL 1 >

PEL 2, PEL 3, PEL 4, PEL 5

SD

13.1

15.8

15.8

13.2

12.1

Note. EMM = estimated marginal means. PEL = Parental Education level; PEL 1 = No high school diploma; PEL 2 = High school diploma/GED; PEL 3 = Some college or associate’s degree; PEL 4 = Bachelor’s degree; PEL 5 = Graduate or professional degree. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .05; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14.

Click to expand

Table 10.32b. Group Differences by Parental Education Level: Conners 4 Parent Effect Sizes

Scale

Parental Education Level

1 vs. 2

1 vs. 3

1 vs. 4

1 vs. 5

2 vs. 3

2 vs. 4

2 vs. 5

3 vs. 4

3 vs. 5

4 vs. 5

Content Scales

Inattention/Executive
Dysfunction

0.09

0.05

0.11

0.11

−0.04

0.01

0.00

0.05

0.04

−0.01

Hyperactivity

0.10

0.16

0.17

0.27

0.06

0.05

0.13

−0.01

0.07

0.09

Impulsivity

0.13

0.20

0.20

0.22

0.06

0.05

0.06

−0.02

−0.01

0.01

Emotional Dysregulation

0.08

0.13

0.14

0.13

0.05

0.05

0.04

−0.01

−0.02

−0.01

Depressed Mood

0.14

0.12

0.12

0.13

−0.02

−0.04

−0.03

−0.02

−0.01

0.01

Anxious Thoughts

0.10

0.13

0.07

0.14

0.03

−0.04

0.03

−0.07

−0.01

0.07

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Schoolwork

0.15

0.11

0.22

0.25

−0.04

0.04

0.06

0.09

0.10

0.02

Peer Interactions

0.20

0.26

0.21

0.27

0.06

−0.01

0.03

−0.07

−0.03

0.04

Family Life

0.15

0.16

0.17

0.10

0.01

0.00

−0.06

−0.01

−0.08

−0.07

DSM Symptom Scales

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms

0.12

0.14

0.18

0.09

0.02

0.04

−0.04

0.02

−0.06

−0.09

Conduct Disorder Symptoms

0.26

0.31

0.28

0.31

0.04

−0.02

−0.01

−0.06

−0.05

0.01

Note. Parental Education Levels: 1 = No high school diploma; 2 = High school diploma/GED; 3 = Some college or associate’s degree; 4 = Bachelor’s degree; 5 = Graduate or professional degree. Values presented are Cohen’s d effect size estimates; guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80.

Click to expand

Table 10.33a. Group Differences by Parental Education Level: Conners 4 Self-Report

Scale

PEL 1
(N = 136)

PEL 2
(N = 284)

PEL 3
(N = 318)

PEL 4
(N = 215)

PEL 5
(N = 147)

F
(4, 1084)

p

Partial η2

Content Scales

Inattention/Executive
Dysfunction

EMM

52.6

53.3

52.9

52.2

53.4

0.55

.697

.00

SD

11.9

13.5

14.0

12.2

11.6

Hyperactivity

EMM

51.8

52.9

51.8

51.6

52.6

0.79

.534

.00

SD

12.1

13.7

14.1

12.4

11.7

Impulsivity

EMM

52.7

51.6

51.7

51.4

51.8

0.40

.806

.00

SD

12.2

13.8

14.3

12.5

11.8

Emotional
Dysregulation

EMM

51.5

51.5

51.9

51.3

52.6

0.45

.774

.00

SD

12.2

13.8

14.2

12.5

11.8

Depressed Mood

EMM

52.6

51.4

52.7

52.5

52.0

0.85

.494

.00

SD

12.2

13.8

14.3

12.5

11.9

Anxious Thoughts

EMM

51.2

51.6

52.4

52.5

52.5

0.70

.590

.00

SD

12.2

13.8

14.2

12.5

11.8

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Schoolwork

EMM

53.0

52.4

53.2

51.6

52.0

1.02

.398

.00

SD

12.0

13.6

14.1

12.3

11.7

Peer
Interactions

EMM

52.5

52.0

51.9

52.0

51.0

0.48

.754

.00

SD

12.2

13.8

14.3

12.5

11.9

Family Life

EMM

51.3

51.3

51.6

51.4

51.7

0.07

.991

.00

SD

12.4

14.0

14.5

12.7

12.1

DSM Symptom Scales

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms

EMM

51.2

51.3

51.3

50.5

51.4

0.29

.883

.00

SD

12.3

13.9

14.4

12.6

11.9

Conduct
Disorder
Symptoms

EMM

51.2

50.5

50.4

48.6

49.6

1.75

.136

.01

SD

12.6

14.3

14.8

12.9

12.3

Note. EMM = estimated marginal means. PEL = Parental Education level; PEL 1 = No high school diploma; PEL 2 = High school diploma/GED; PEL 3 = Some college or associate’s degree; PEL 4 = Bachelor’s degree; PEL 5 = Graduate or professional degree. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .05; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14.

Click to expand

Table 10.33b. Group Differences by Parental Education Level: Conners 4 Self-Report Effect Sizes

Scale

Parental Education Level

1 vs. 2

1 vs. 3

1 vs. 4

1 vs. 5

2 vs. 3

2 vs. 4

2 vs. 5

3 vs. 4

3 vs. 5

4 vs. 5

Content Scales

Inattention/Executive
Dysfunction

−0.05

−0.02

0.04

−0.07

0.03

0.09

−0.01

0.05

−0.04

−0.10

Hyperactivity

−0.08

0.00

0.02

−0.07

0.08

0.10

0.02

0.01

−0.06

−0.08

Impulsivity

0.09

0.07

0.11

0.08

−0.01

0.01

−0.01

0.02

−0.01

−0.03

Emotional Dysregulation

0.00

−0.03

0.01

−0.09

−0.03

0.01

−0.08

0.04

−0.05

−0.10

Depressed Mood

0.09

−0.01

0.01

0.05

−0.10

−0.08

−0.05

0.02

0.06

0.04

Anxious Thoughts

−0.03

−0.09

−0.11

−0.11

−0.06

−0.07

−0.07

−0.01

−0.01

0.00

Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales

Schoolwork

0.04

−0.02

0.11

0.08

−0.05

0.07

0.04

0.12

0.09

−0.03

Peer Interactions

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.13

0.00

0.00

0.08

0.00

0.07

0.09

Family Life

0.00

−0.02

−0.01

−0.04

−0.02

−0.01

−0.03

0.02

−0.01

−0.03

DSM Symptom Scales

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms

−0.01

−0.01

0.06

−0.02

0.00

0.06

−0.01

0.06

−0.01

−0.08

Conduct Disorder Symptoms

0.06

0.06

0.21

0.13

0.01

0.14

0.06

0.13

0.05

−0.08

Note. Parental Education Levels: 1 = No high school diploma; 2 = High school diploma/GED; 3 = Some college or associate’s degree; 4 = Bachelor’s degree; 5 = Graduate or professional degree. Values presented are Cohen’s d effect size estimates; guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80.

Click to expand

Table 10.34a. Demographic Group Differences in Self-Harm Critical Items: Gender

 Form

Self-Harm Critical Item Stem

Endorsement (%)

Cliff’s d

Male

Female

Parent

Harming self deliberately

4.5

4.7

.00

Talking about suicide

4.7

3.3

−.01

Planning or attempting suicide

3.3

3.3

.00

Teacher

Harming self deliberately

4.2

3.0

−.01

Talking about suicide

3.6

3.0

−.01

Planning or attempting suicide

2.5

3.0

.00

Self-Report

Harming self deliberately

16.8

16.1

.00

Planning or attempting to harm self

14.9

15.5

−.01

Thinking about harming self

16.5

21.1

−.04

Note. Self-Harm Critical Items are considered endorsed with an item response ≥ 1. Guidelines for interpreting Cliff’s |d|: negligible effect size < .15; small effect size = .15 to .32; medium effect size = .33 to .46; large effect size ≥ .47. Positive values indicate that the second group in the comparison provided higher ratings than the group listed first.

Click to expand
Click to expand

Table 10.34c. Demographic Group Differences in Self-Harm Critical Items: Country of Residence

Form

Self-Harm Critical Item Stem

Endorsement (%)

Cliff’s d

U.S.

Canada

Parent

Harming self deliberately

5.4

8.1

−.03

Talking about suicide

5.4

2.7

.03

Planning or attempting suicide

5.4

4.1

.01

Teacher

Harming self deliberately

5.0

3.4

.02

Talking about suicide

1.7

3.4

−.02

Planning or attempting suicide

2.5

3.4

−.01

Self-Report

Harming self deliberately

17.5

23.8

−.07

Planning or attempting to harm self

12.5

17.5

−.05

Thinking about harming self

13.8

21.3

−.07

Note. Self-Harm Critical Items are considered endorsed with an item response ≥ 1. Guidelines for interpreting Cliff’s |d|: negligible effect size < .15; small effect size = .15 to .32; medium effect size = .33 to .46; large effect size ≥ .47. Positive values indicate that the second group in the comparison provided higher ratings than the group listed first.

Click to expand

Table 10.34d. Demographic Group Differences in Self-Harm Critical Items: Parental Education Level

Form

Self-Harm Critical Item Stem

Endorsement (%)

Cliff’s d

PEL 1–2

PEL 3–5

Parent

Harming self deliberately

5.3

3.7

.02

Talking about suicide

3.3

4.4

−.01

Planning or attempting suicide

4.0

2.8

.01

Teacher

Harming self deliberately

—

—

—

Talking about suicide

—

—

—

Planning or attempting suicide

—

—

—

Self-Report

Harming self deliberately

15.7

15.9

.00

Planning or attempting to harm self

13.6

14.3

−.01

Thinking about harming self

16.4

19.3

−.03

Note. Self-Harm Critical Items are considered endorsed with an item response ≥ 1. Guidelines for interpreting Cliff’s |d|: negligible effect size < .15; small effect size = .15 to .32; medium effect size = .33 to .46; large effect size ≥ .47. Positive values indicate that the second group in the comparison provided higher ratings than the group listed first.

Click to expand

Table 10.35a. Demographic Group Differences in Sleep Problems Indicator Items: Gender

 Form

Sleep Problems Indicator Item Stem

Endorsement (%)

Cliff’s d

Male

Female

Parent

Having trouble sleeping

11.4

10.8

−.01

Appearing tired

6.5

7.3

.00

Teacher

Appearing tired

12.3

9.0

−.06

Self-Report

Having trouble sleeping

19.3

19.6

.01

Feeling tired

12.4

13.7

−.09

Note. Sleep Problems Indicator items are considered endorsed with an item response ≥ 2 for trouble sleeping, and an item response of 3 for tiredness. Guidelines for interpreting Cliff’s |d|: negligible effect size < .15; small effect size = .15 to .32; medium effect size = .33 to .46; large effect size ≥ .47. Positive values indicate that the second group in the comparison provided higher ratings than the group listed first.

Click to expand

Table 10.35b. Demographic Group Differences in Sleep Problems Indicator Items: U.S. Race/Ethnicity

 Form

Sleep Problems Indicator Item Stem

Endorsement (%)

Cliff’s d

Endorsement (%)

Cliff’s d

Endorsement (%)

Cliff’s d

White

Black

White

Hispanic

White

Asian

Parent

Having trouble sleeping

10.2

11.4

.02

10.2

9.6

.02

9.8

3.9

.02

Appearing tired

5.1

9.1

−.01

7.0

9.6

−.01

3.9

3.9

.17

Teacher

Appearing tired

8.3

11.5

.03

6.0

10.0

.04

2.3

9.3

.02

Self-Report

Having trouble sleeping

20.9

16.3

−.16

16.3

16.3

.02

14.0

23.3

.07

Feeling tired

13.2

19.4

−.01

12.8

6.4

−.07

16.3

9.3

−.22

Note. Sleep Problems Indicator items are considered endorsed with an item response ≥ 2 for trouble sleeping, and an item response of 3 for tiredness. Guidelines for interpreting Cliff’s |d|: negligible effect size < .15; small effect size = .15 to .32; medium effect size = .33 to .46; large effect size ≥ .47. Positive values indicate that the second group in the comparison provided higher ratings than the group listed first.

Click to expand

Table 10.35c. Demographic Group Differences in Sleep Problems Indicator: Country of Residence

Form

Sleep Problems Indicator Item Stem

Endorsement (%)

Cliff’s d

U.S.

Canada

Parent

Having trouble sleeping

12.2

13.5

−.08

Appearing tired

6.8

9.5

.00

Teacher

Appearing tired

8.4

7.6

.01

Self-Report

Having trouble sleeping

15.0

17.5

.05

Feeling tired

13.8

21.3

−.15

Note. Sleep Problems Indicator items are considered endorsed with an item response ≥ 2 for trouble sleeping, and an item response of 3 for tiredness. Guidelines for interpreting Cliff’s |d|: negligible effect size < .15; small effect size = .15 to .32; medium effect size = .33 to .46; large effect size ≥ .47. Positive values indicate that the second group in the comparison provided higher ratings than the group listed first.

Click to expand

Table 10.35d. Demographic Group Differences in Sleep Problems Indicator: Parental Education Level

 Form

Sleep Problems Indicator Item Stem

Endorsement (%)

Cliff’s d

PEL 1–2

PEL 3–5

Parent

Having trouble sleeping

12.4

11.8

−.02

Appearing tired

7.5

8.2

−.03

Self-Report

Having trouble sleeping

16.9

19.1

−.01

Feeling tired

12.9

14.0

−.08

Note. Sleep Problems Indicator items are considered endorsed with an item response ≥ 2 for trouble sleeping, and an item response of 3 for tiredness. Guidelines for interpreting Cliff’s |d|: negligible effect size < .15; small effect size = .15 to .32; medium effect size = .33 to .46; large effect size ≥ .47. Positive values indicate that the second group in the comparison provided higher ratings than the group listed first.