Table 2.
Demographics of each of the three clusters derived from Brazilian refined factor scores
| Variablea | Cluster | Statistic | Effect sizeb | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SS | PS | PU | ||||
| N | 139 | 94 | 94 | |||
| Age | ||||||
| Mean | 10.9 | 10.5 | 10.4 | F(2, 324) = 0.64 | 0.00 | [0.00, 1.00] |
| SD | 3.5 | 4.02 | 3.68 | |||
| Gender (%) | χ2 (2) = 1.27 | 0.06 | [0.02, 0.19] | |||
| Male | 77.7 | 78.7 | 72.3 | |||
| Female | 22.3 | 21.3 | 27.7 | |||
| Diagnosis (%) | ||||||
| ASD | 87.8 | 80.9 | 78.7 | χ2 (2) = 3.79 | 0.11 | [0.03, 0.23] |
| DS | 12.9 | 13.8 | 21.3 | χ2 (2) = 3.27 | 0.10 | [0.03, 0.23] |
| I D | 5.8 | 13.8 | 8.5 | χ2 (2) = 4.54 | 0.12 | [0.03, 0.23] |
| Medication (%) | ||||||
| Yes | 45.3 | 10.6 | 36.2 | χ2 (2) = 31.36*** | 0.31 | [0.23, 0.40] |
| Access to support (%) | ||||||
| Yes | 11.5 | 27.7 | 12.8 | χ2 (2) = 11.95** | 0.19 | [0.08, 0.31] |
SS sensory sensitivity; PS perceived safety; PU perceived unsafety; ASD autism spectrum disorder; DS Down’s syndrome; ID intellectual disability, **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
aExperiernce of early traumatic or adverse events could not be reliably compared across clusters due to low endorsement rate
bω2 for ANOVA and Cramer’s V for χ2 tests