Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Oral Dis. 2011 Aug 29;18(1):74–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2011.01847.x

Table 5.

Adjusted effects of study explanatory variables on the T-scores of the behavioral outcomes

Depression/anxiety Inattention/hyperactivity Aggressive/oppositional Somatic symptoms
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Team care −1.17
(1.24)		 −0.80
(1.33)		 0.09
(1.67)		 0.11
(1.84)		 −1.28
(1.56)		 0.38
(1.64)		 −2.53
(1.52)		 −0.87
(1.60)
Number of cleft
surgeries		 1.21**
(0.53)		 0.75
(0.58)		 1.00
(0.72)		 0.92
(0.80)		 −0.09
(0.67)		 −0.53
(0.71)		 1.34**
(0.65)		 1.41**
(0.70)
SES index −1.14***
(0.43)		 −0.99**
(0.48)		 −2.33***
(0.58)		 −2.30***
(0.66)		 −1.38**
(0.54)		 −1.01*
(0.59)		 −1.68***
(0.53)		 −1.76***
(0.57)
Child’s age −0.12
(0.18)		 −0.26
(0.21)		 0.08
(0.25)		 0.13
(0.29)		 0.24
(0.23)		 0.19
(0.25)		 −0.04
(0.23)		 −0.17
(0.25)
Cleft lip with
palate a 		−1.33
(1.50)		 −0.90
(1.66)		 −0.60
(2.03)		 −0.71
(2.30)		 2.74
(1.90)		 2.32
(2.04)		 −3.08*
(1.85)		 −4.60**
(1.99)
Dissatisfied with
facial appearance		 3.23**
(1.37)		 0.31
(1.89)		 3.46**
(1.68)		 2.60
(1.64)
Intercept 52.16***
(1.59)		 52.61***
(1.70)		 51.32***
(2.16)		 51.05***
(2.35)		 51.43***
(2.01)		 50.35***
(2.09)		 54.72***
(1.96)		 53.92***
(2.04)
Sample sizeb 93 84 93 84 93 84 93 84

Note: The table lists the adjusted effects the explanatory variables included simultaneously in the ordinary least squares regression. Model 1 excludes satisfaction with facial appearance while Model 2 adjusts for this variable. For each categorical variable the reference categories are as listed in Table 1.

a

We combined cleft lip alone and cleft palate alone in the reference category for cleft lip with cleft palate as we did not observe significant behavioral differences between the two cleft types and because children who had cleft lip with cleft palate had about 2 surgeries more on average than children with cleft lip or cleft palate alone (mean number of surgery of 3.2 versus 1.3). Also, including two indicators of cleft type in the regression resulted in some stability problems in the regressions of some outcomes due to the small number of children with cleft lip alone or cleft palate alone.

b

This is the sample with complete data on the outcome and all variables included simultaneously in the regression.

*, ** and ***indicate p < 0.1, p < 0.05, p < 0.01, respectively.