Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- Genre: Masters Thesis
- Resource Type: Text
Description
The nature and correlates of emerging internalizing symptoms in young children are largely unknown. Maternal factors such as psychological symptoms and detached parenting style have been found to be present in children with anxiety and depression. Further, child attentional control in task completion has been associated with difficulty related to internalizing problems. This study tested hypotheses that child anxiety and depression at age five could be predicted by a combination of maternal distress and maternal detached behavior recorded at age three. An additional hypothesis was tested to determine if child attentional control at age four may be a partial mediator of the relation between maternal symptoms and parenting to child internalizing symptoms. Using structural equation modeling, no hypotheses were supported; child internalizing problems were not significantly predicted by maternal distress nor detached parenting. Further, child attentional control was not predicted by maternal distress or detached behavior, nor did attentional control predict internalizing problems. Findings indicate that over a two-year interval, childhood internalizing problems at age five are likely best predicted by early internalizing problems at age three. There was no support that the mother or child factors tested were predictive of child outcomes.
ContributorsSkelley, Shayna (Author) / Crnic, Keith A (Thesis advisor) / Eisenberg, Nancy (Committee member) / MacKinnon, David (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2010
Description
Psychologists report effect sizes in randomized controlled trials to facilitate interpretation and inform clinical or policy guidance. Since commonly used effect size measures (e.g., standardized mean difference) are not sensitive to heterogeneous treatment effects, methodologists have suggested the use of an alternative effect size δ, a between-subjects causal parameter describing the probability that the outcome of a random participant in the treatment group is better than the outcome of another random participant in the control group. Although this effect size is useful, researchers could mistakenly use δ to describe its within-subject analogue, ψ, the probability that an individual will do better under the treatment than the control. Hand’s paradox describes the situation where ψ and δ are on opposing sides of 0.5: δ may imply most are helped whereas the (unknown) underlying ψ indicates that most are harmed by the treatment. The current study used Monte Carlo simulations to investigate plausible situations under which Hand’s paradox does and does not occur, tracked the magnitude of the discrepancy between ψ and δ, and explored whether the size of the discrepancy could be reduced with a relevant covariate. The findings suggested that although the paradox should not occur under bivariate normal data conditions in the population, there could be sample cases with the paradox. The magnitude of the discrepancy between ψ and δ depended on both the size of the average treatment effect and the underlying correlation between the potential outcomes, ρ. Smaller effects led to larger discrepancies when ρ < 0 and ρ = 1, whereas larger effects led to larger discrepancies when 0 < ρ < 1. It was useful to consider a relevant covariate when calculating ψ and δ. Although ψ and δ were still discrepant within covariate levels, results indicated that conditioning upon relevant covariates is still useful in describing heterogeneous treatment effects.
ContributorsLiu, Xinran (Author) / Anderson, Samantha F (Thesis advisor) / McNeish, Daniel (Committee member) / MacKinnon, David (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
Anxiety and depression are among the most prevalent disorders in youth, with prevalence rates ranging from 15% to 25% for anxiety and 5% to 14% for depression. Anxiety and depressive disorders cause significant impairment, fail to spontaneously remit, and have been prospectively linked to problematic substance use and legal problems in adulthood. These disorders often share a high-degree of comorbidity in both clinical and community samples, with anxiety disorders typically preceding the onset of depression. Given the nature and consequences of anxiety and depressive disorders, a plethora of treatment and preventative interventions have been developed and tested with data showing significant pre to post to follow-up reductions in anxiety and depressive symptoms. However, little is known about the mediators by which these interventions achieve their effects. To address this gap in the literature, the present thesis study combined meta-analytic methods and path analysis to evaluate the effects of youth anxiety and depression interventions on outcomes and four theory-driven mediators using data from 55 randomized controlled trials (N = 11,413). The mediators included: (1) information-processing biases, (2) coping strategies, (3) social competence, and (4) physiological hyperarousal. Meta-analytic results showed that treatment and preventative interventions reliably produced moderate effect sizes on outcomes and three of the four mediators (information-processing biases, coping strategies, social competence). Most importantly, findings from the path analysis showed that changes in information-processing biases and coping strategies consistently mediated changes in outcomes for anxiety and depression at both levels of intervention, whereas gains in social competence and reductions in physiological hyperarousal did not emerge as significant mediators. Knowledge of the mediators underlying intervention effects is important because they can refine testable models of treatment and prevention efforts and identify which anxiety and depression components need to be packaged or strengthened to maximize intervention effects. Allocating additional resources to significant mediators has the potential to reduce costs associated with adopting and implementing evidence-based interventions and improve dissemination and sustainability in real-world settings, thus setting the stage to be more readily integrated into clinical and non-clinical settings on a large scale.
ContributorsStoll, Ryan (Author) / Pina, Armando A (Thesis advisor) / MacKinnon, David (Committee member) / Knight, George (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
Methods to test hypotheses of mediated effects in the pretest-posttest control group design are understudied in the behavioral sciences (MacKinnon, 2008). Because many studies aim to answer questions about mediating processes in the pretest-posttest control group design, there is a need to determine which model is most appropriate to test hypotheses about mediating processes and what happens to estimates of the mediated effect when model assumptions are violated in this design. The goal of this project was to outline estimator characteristics of four longitudinal mediation models and the cross-sectional mediation model. Models were compared on type 1 error rates, statistical power, accuracy of confidence interval coverage, and bias of parameter estimates. Four traditional longitudinal models and the cross-sectional model were assessed. The four longitudinal models were analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using pretest scores as a covariate, path analysis, difference scores, and residualized change scores. A Monte Carlo simulation study was conducted to evaluate the different models across a wide range of sample sizes and effect sizes. All models performed well in terms of type 1 error rates and the ANCOVA and path analysis models performed best in terms of bias and empirical power. The difference score, residualized change score, and cross-sectional models all performed well given certain conditions held about the pretest measures. These conditions and future directions are discussed.
ContributorsValente, Matthew John (Author) / MacKinnon, David (Thesis advisor) / West, Stephen (Committee member) / Aiken, Leona (Committee member) / Enders, Craig (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015