Table 1.
Sample Characteristics by Diagnostic Group
| ASD N = 20a |
BAP N = 9b |
TD N = 40c |
Test Statistic | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Familial Likelihood | p<.00011 | |||
| High Likelihood | 19 (95%) | 7 (78%) | 9 (23%) | |
| Low Likelihood | 1 (5%) | 2 (22%) | 31 (77%) | |
| Sex | p=.31131 | |||
| Male | 15 (75%) | 6 (77%) | 22 (55%) | |
| Female | 5 (25%) | 3 (33%) | 18 (45%) | |
| Child’s Race | p=.48141,d | |||
| White | 11 (55%) | 2 (22%) | 31 (78%) | |
| Black | 3 (15%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (5%) | |
| Asian | 1 (5%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| More than One Race | 1 (5%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (7%) | |
| Ethncty | p=.59381 | |||
| Hispanic or Latino | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (8%) | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 16 (80%) | 2 (22%) | 34 (85%) | |
| Household Income | p=.00351 | |||
| <$40,000 | 5 (25%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| $40,000-$80,000 | 2 (10%) | 1 (11%) | 5 (12%) | |
| $80,000-$125,000 | 4 (20%) | 1 (11%) | 11 (28%) | |
| >$125,000 | 4 (20%) | 0 (0%) | 20 (50%) | |
| Maternal Education | p=.00021 | |||
| High School Degree | 6 (30%) | 1 (11%) | 0 (0%) | |
| College Degree | 9 (45%) | 1 (11%) | 16 (40%) | |
| Graduate Degree | 2 (10%) | 4 (44%) | 19 (48%) | |
| ADOS Total CSS, M (SD) | 6.11 (2.47) | 3.00 (1.07) | 1.69 (1.33) | p<.00012 |
| MSEL T-Scores3 | ||||
| Visual ReceptionΨ, Ω | 49.56 (17.89) | 58.88 (12.03) | 62.00 (9.08) | p=.00672 |
| Receptive LanguageΨ,ǂ | 37.61 (18.98) | 58.88 (11.57) | 57.06 (9.31) | p<.00012 |
| Expressive LanguageΨ,ǂ | 37.50 (16.84) | 54.00 (14.54) | 54.69 (10.22) | p=.00012 |
| Fine MotorΨ,ǂ | 43.61 (13.28) | 56.25 (6.54) | 53.88 (11.13) | p=.00582 |
(a) 4 children had unknown race/ethnicity data; 5 children had unknown Household Income data; 2 children had missing outcome data
7 children had unknown race/ethnicity/household income data, 1 child had missing outcome data
4 children had unknown race/household income data; 3 children had unknown ethnicity data; 7 children had missing outcome data
The following race categories were combined into one category for analysis: Asian, More than One Race, and Other.
Fisher’s Exact Test were used to examine differences between diagnostic groups due to the small expected values.
One-way ANOVA
MSEL scores are represented by t-scores with an average of 50 and a standard deviation of 10
Post-Hoc Analysis using Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) tests revealed significant differences between ASD and TD group means in MSEL Domain scores.
Post-Hoc Analysis using Tukey’s HSD tests revealed significant differences between TD and BAP group means in MSEL Domain scores.
Post-Hoc Analysis using Tukey’s HSD tests revealed significant differences between ASD and BAP group means in MSEL Domain scores.