Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Jul 25.
Published in final edited form as: Top Lang Disord. 2011;31(2):112–127. doi: 10.1097/TLD.0b013e318217b5dd

Table 5. Comparison of Groups Based on Comorbid Conditions of LI and RD and Performance on Endophenotype Factor Score Mean (SD).

Comorbid conditions
SSD alone No RD N = 67 SSD + LI No RD N = 54 SSD + RD N = 7 SSD + LI + RD N = 40 F p
Oral motor skills n = 53 −.11 (5.7) n = 33 −.14 (8.8) n=6 0.68 (3.5) n = 37 0.26 (7.5) 0.04 .988
Speeded naming n = 53 −0.22 (31.1) n = 31 −2.61 (31.6) n=5 0.28 (20.9) n = 34 6.91 (40.8) 0.48 .695
Phonological awarenessab n = 54 0.66 (1.4) n = 37 −0.20 (1.6) n=6 1.88 (3.3) n = 34 −1.77 (2.2) 15.19 <.0001
Phonological memoryac n = 67 1.23 (4.0) n = 52 −2.49 (3.9) n=7 1.56 (2.8) n = 40 −4.13 (4.7) 17.53 <.0001
Vocabularyd n = 67 2.14 (4.9) n = 54 −2.90 (5.0) n=7 −1.58 (4.3) n = 40 −3.08 (5.1) 13.89 <.0001

Note. LI = language impairment; RD = reading disorder; SSD = speech sound disorder.

a

SSD + LI + RD differs from SSD alone, SSD + LI, and SSD +RD.

b

SSD + LI differs from SSD +RD.

c

SSD + LI differs from SSD alone.

d

SSD + LI + RD differs from SSD alone.

Cells contain number of observations and mean (standard deviation) for the factor score. In Table 5, we distinguish subtypes of SSD alone and SSD + LI as to whether or not they have comorbid RD.