Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Dev Psychopathol. 2009 Summer;21(3):889–912. doi: 10.1017/S0954579409000480

Table 6.

Comparison of Subsequent Internalizing and Externalizing Symptomatology Based on Latent Class Membership of Ego Resiliency and Ego Control

Externalizing
Internalizing
M SD Contrasts M SD Contrasts
Ego Resiliency Classesa N, MI < MD N, MI < MD
Nonmaltreated (N, n = 157) 54.03 8.09 49.87 6.50
Maltreated-Declining (MD, n = 72) 60.60 8.64 55.23 6.36
Maltreated-Increasing (MI, n = 109) 54.42 7.54 50.04 7.05
F (df) 18.09* (2, 335) 17.94* (2, 335)
Ego Control Classesa NLS < M, NI, ND NI, NLS < M, ND
Nonmaltreated-Increasing (NI, n = 62) 59.72 7.08 49.27 6.25
Nonmaltreated-Low-Stable (NLS, n = 89) 49.98 6.42 49.90 6.62
Nonmaltreated-Declining (ND, n = 6) 55.32 2.80 55.63 5.01
Maltreated (M, n = 181) 56.87 8.53 52.11 7.23
F (df) 23.34* (3, 334) 4.53* (3, 334)

Note.

a

Significant difference by latent class (p < .05). Letters for Contrasts designate groups that are significantly different at the .05 level. N = Nonmaltreated; M = Maltreated; MD = Maltreated-Declining; MI = Maltreated-Increasing; NI = Nonmaltreated-Increasing; NLS = Nonmaltreated-Low-Stable; ND = Nonmaltreated-Declining.

*

p < .05.