Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neuropsychologia. 2013 Jul 11;51(11):2294–2304. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.06.022

Table 4.

Regression analyses predicting NAT score and error types.

R2 F p df β t
NAT score 0.533 16.18 < 0.001 5,76
Predictor
CDR –0.439 –4.243
Segmentation agreement 0.200 2.009
Working memory 0.087 0.638
Semantic memory 0.085 0.624
Script knowledge 0.101 0.978
Omission errors 0.419 10.22 < 0.001 5,76
Predictor
CDR 0.389 3.374
Segmentation agreement –0.276 –2.484
Working memory –0.153 –1.003
Semantic memory –0.003 –0.019
Script knowledge 0.035 0.305
Commission errors 0.121 1.95 0.097 5,76
Predictor
CDR 0.223 1.574
Segmentation agreement –0.088 –0.645
Working memory –0.196 –1.044
Semantic memory 0.082 0.439
Script knowledge 0.021 0.151
Action additions 0.185 3.22 0.011 5,76
Predictor
CDR –0.112 –0.818
Segmentation agreement –0.276 –0.270
Working memory –0.250 –1.378
Semantic memory –0.195 –1.082
Script knowledge –0.088 –0.646

Note: Composite variables created by averaging z scores for variables representing each construct. Bolded values are significant at the p < 0.05 level.