Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Jun 16.
Published in final edited form as: JAMA Psychiatry. 2013 Nov;70(11):1133–1142. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.1909

Table 2. Scores on the Neurocognitive Domains for Clinical High-Risk Subjects With Good and Poor Social Outcome.

Score Mean (SD) F2,152 Value P Value Cohen fa Post hoc Contrastsb
Good Social
(n = 48)
Poor Social
n = 44)
Verbal memory −0.51 (1.13) −1.43 (1.39) 19.94 <.001 0.50 HC>PO, GO; PO>GO
Working memory −0.42 (1.17) −0.92 (1.28) 9.05 <.001 0.33 HC>PO
Executive function −0.25 (1.29) −1.63 (2.9) 11.37 <.001 0.39 HC>PO; PO>GO
Sustained attention −0.35 (1.18) −0.99 (1.4) 9.35 .003 0.34 HC>PO, GO
Processing speed −1.08 (2.03) −2.02 (2.44) 18.18 <.001 0.46 HC>PO, GO; PO>GO
Motor speed −0.39 (1.22) −0.42 (1.38) 2.92 .002 0.16 HC>PO; PO>GO
Visuospatial processing −0.62 (1.34) −0.87 (1.78) 5.56 .005 0.26 HC>PO
Language −0.43 (1.46) −1.12 (1.58) 9.08 <.001 0.34 HC>PO; PO>GO

Abbreviations: GO, good outcome; HC, healthy controls; PO, poor outcome.

a

Indicates a measure of effect size that provides the standardized mean difference between groups and can be interpreted using the following categories73: small = 0.10, medium = 0.25, large = 0.40.

b

Bonferroni-corrected post hoc contrast (P < .017).