Table 2.
Investigated models, statistical hypotheses, and translation for Bayesian analyses
| Model | Statistical hypothesis | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Gifted + dyslexia vs. dyslexia | ||
| Weaknesses | ||
| Model 0 | μD, μGD | Alternative hypothesis or unconstrained model |
| Model 1 | μD > μGD | Twice-exceptionality view: Dyslexic children have higher scores on the cognitive risk factors than gifted/dyslexic children, indicating more severe deficits in the gifted/dyslexic group |
| Model 2 | μD = μGD | Core-deficit view: Both groups have about equal scores on the cognitive risk factors, indicating that the groups are comparable |
| Strengths | ||
| Model 0 | μD, μGD | Alternative hypothesis or unconstrained model |
| Model 1 | μD < μGD | Twice-exceptionality view: Dyslexic children have lower scores on the cognitive protective factors than gifted/dyslexic children, indicating more pronounced strengths in the gifted/dyslexic group |
| Model 2 | μD = μGD | Both groups have about equal scores on the cognitive protective factors, indicating that the groups are comparable |
| Gifted + dyslexia vs. borderline | ||
| Weaknesses | ||
| Model 0 | μB, μGD | Alternative hypothesis or unconstrained model |
| Model 1 | μB > μGD | Core-deficit view: Borderline children have higher scores on the cognitive risk factors than the gifted/dyslexic children, indicating less severe deficits in the borderline group |
| Model 2 | μB = μGD | Both groups have about equal scores on the cognitive risk factors, indicating that the groups are comparable |
| Strengths | ||
| Model 0 | μB, μGD | Alternative hypothesis or unconstrained model |
| Model 1 | μB > μGD | Twice-exceptionality view: Borderline children have higher scores on the cognitive protective factors than the gifted/dyslexic children, indicating more pronounced strengths in the borderline group |
| Model 2 | μB = μGD | Both groups have about equal scores on the cognitive protective factors, indicating that the groups are comparable |