131 Short-term outcomes and six-month follow-up of BEAR 6 Parent Parental Skills: The analyses revealed a significant main effect of time on following in (F2,52 = 5.13, p = .009, η2 = .165), indicating that parents improved on following their child’s interest over time, regardless of the treatment group. However, this effect was lost in the sensitivity analyses (F2,33 = 2.51, p = .096, η2 = .132), suggesting that these findings should be interpreted with caution. Additionally, no significant time x group interaction effect was observed. RM ANOVAs indicated a significant effect of time on scaffolding (F2,52 = 3.26, p = .046, η2 = .111). Furthermore, a significant time x group interaction effect was observed (F2,52 = 4.12, p = .022, η2 = .137). Figure 2.1. illustrates the scaffolding scores for both the BEAR and CAU groups across all time points. Post-hoc analyses revealed that the significant effect occurred between baseline (T1) and endpoint (T2) for the CAU group (F1,53 = 6.08, p = .027). During this period, parents in the CAU group demonstrated a significant decrease in scaffolding skills. Conversely, post-hoc analyses showed a significant increase in parental scaffolding for the BEAR group between baseline (T1) and follow-up (T3) (F1,53 = 7.73, p = .008). Sensitivity analyses (see Supplementary Materials) confirmed the significant time x group interaction effect (F(2,33) = 4.56, p = .018, η2 = .216). A significant time x group interaction effect was found for caregiver affect across baseline (T1), endpoint (T2) and follow-up (T3) (F(2,52) = 5.59, p = .006, η2 = .177). Figure 2.2 presents the caregiver affect scores for both the BEAR and CAU groups at all time points. Post-hoc analyses revealed a significant effect between baseline (T1) and endpoint (T2) in both groups: parents in the CAU group significantly decreased in caregiver affect (F(2,52) = 5.58, p = .033), while those in the BEAR group demonstrated a significant improvement (F(2,52) = 5.69, p = .022). When comparing baseline (T1) to follow-up (T3), parents in the BEAR group continued to show a significant improvement in caregiver affect (F(2,52) = 6.48, p = .015), even six months after completing the intervention. Sensitivity analyses (see Supplementary Materials S1) aligned with the main analyses, confirming a significant time x group interaction effect (F(2,33) = 4.48, p = .014, η2 = .277). No significant effects were found for time, group or the interaction (see Tables 4 and 5) for symbol highlighting. Sensitivity analyses (see Supplementary Materials S1) confirmed these findings. WEMWBS5: When comparing baseline (T1) to endpoint (T2), a significant time effect was found (F(1,27) = 4.56, p = .042, η2 = .145). However, the significant time effect disappeared in the sensitivity analyses (see Supplementary Materials S1). 5 The results of the RM ANOVA on the WEMWBS are available in the Supplementary Materials, as missing data for the WEMWBS was not imputed.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw