(This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.) This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit:

Objectives To evaluate putative moderator, predictor, and treatment parameter variables in relation to three outcomes in a clinical trial that compared a modular protocol for on-site, nurse-administered intervention (PONI) and enhanced usual care (EUC) for pediatric behavioral problems in primary care. Methods Patients were 163 clinically referred children for behavior problems in six primary care offices. PONI consisted of seven treatment modules adapted from prior treatment trials with this population, where-as EUC involved a facilitated referral to a community provider. Outcome measures were based on standard-ized scales reflecting one parent-rated aggregate (child dysfunction) and one child-rated aggregate (child health), and diagnostic interviews with both informants (remission in oppositional defiant disorder). Results Moderator analyses revealed that PONI was more effective than EUC in reducing child dysfunction by 12-month follow-up among Caucasian children, whereas EUC was more effective than PONI among non-Caucasian children. In the full sample, child health improvement was predicted by the severity of the child’s depression and anxiety, and level of family conflict. Duration of child exposure to cognitive-behavioral treatment in PONI was related to greater improvement in overall child health, but other treatment parameters were unrelated to outcome. Conclusions These few significant relationships notwithstanding the findings indicate that the two treatments had robust effects on several outcomes and across selected child, parent,