Table 3.
Correlation matrix in which data from participants with the poorest attention scores has been excluded from analysis.
| SWAN I | SWAN C | CONG | INC | RT CONG | RT INC | RTV CONG | RTV INC | RTD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VS | −0.35** | −0.38*** | 0.27* | 0.14 | −0.078 | −0.031 | −0.34** | −0.28* | 0.16 |
| SWAN I | 0.92*** | −0.2 | −0.17 | −0.04 | −0.089 | 0.099 | 0.1 | −0.079 | |
| SWAN C | −0.18 | −0.094 | 0.028 | −0.079 | 0.16 | 0.14 | −0.19 | ||
| CONG | 0.81*** | 0.3* | 0.36** | −0.37** | −0.62*** | 0.26* | |||
| INC | 0.63*** | 0.59*** | −0.042 | −0.44*** | 0.031 | ||||
| RT CONG | 0.92*** | 0.52*** | 0.15 | −0.051 | |||||
| RT INC | 0.46*** | 0.14 | 0.29* | ||||||
| RTV CONG | 0.66*** | −0.13 | |||||||
| RTV INC | −0.11 |
The procedure was identical to that of Table 2 except that data from the 20% of children with the highest SWAN-C scores was excluded. Although the correlations are smaller, the same pattern as in Table 2 can be observed. This indicates that the statistics are not dominated by the children at the end of the spectrum but can be seen throughout.