Comparisons between cells confirmed this pattern (Table 2). While the difference between the VCI and the PRI in the SLDtypical group was small (Mdiff = 1.79; Cohen’s d = 0.13), we found a large difference (in the range of 13.55–16.78 points (with Cohen’s d > 0.97)) between the VCI and the PRI with these two and the other indexes (i.e. the WMI and the PSI) (Fig. 1). Conversely, the difference between all the indexes in the ID group was small (ranging from 0.35 to 2.96, with Cohen’s d < j0.21j). A further 2 groups [SLD-typical, ID] 2 additional indexes [GAI, CPI] mixed ANOVA supported this finding, with a significant interaction [F(1, 230) = 43.56, p < 0.001, h2 p ¼ 0:159]. The difference between the additional indexes in the SLD group was large (Mdiff = 18.21; Cohen’s d = 1.53), whereas in the ID group it was small (Mdiff = 4.18; Cohen’s d = 0.32) (Fig. 1).
Comparisons between cells confirmed this pattern (Table 2). While the difference between the VCI and the PRI in the SLDtypical group was small (Mdiff = 1.79; Cohen’s d = 0.13), we found a large difference (in the range of 13.55–16.78 points (with Cohen’s d > 0.97)) between the VCI and the PRI with these two and the other indexes (i.e. the WMI and the PSI) (Fig. 1). Conversely, the difference between all the indexes in the ID group was small (ranging from 0.35 to 2.96, with Cohen’s d < j0.21j). A further 2 groups [SLD-typical, ID] 2 additional indexes [GAI, CPI] mixed ANOVA supported this finding, with a significant interaction [F(1, 230) = 43.56, p < 0.001, h2 p ¼ 0:159]. The difference between the additional indexes in the SLD group was large (Mdiff = 18.21; Cohen’s d = 1.53), whereas in the ID group it was small (Mdiff = 4.18; Cohen’s d = 0.32) (Fig. 1).
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98aba/98abadb1435b0cfbe63f2dabdddc22693678da81" alt=""