. 2016 Jun;59(3):533–545. doi: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-15-0022

Table 5.

Coding results as a function of group: Study 2.

Measure	HFA	OO	TD	F	p	η_p ²	Post hoc
Story composite ^a	−0.30 (0.53), −1.56 to 0.68	0.02 (0.65), −1.26 to 1.11	0.26 (0.35), −0.32 to 0.84	4.24	.02	.17	HFA < TD
Story completeness ^b	3.9 (1.2), 1 to 5	4.4 (1.7), 1 to 6	4.8 (1.2), 2 to 6	1.75	.19	.08
Story grammar ^c	.62 (.14), .29 to .83	.60 (.22), .17 to 1.0	.64 (.13), .40 to .88	0.18	.84	.01
Coding categories ^d
Setting	0.43 (0.76), 0 to 2	0.67 (0.62), 0 to 2	1.27 (0.96), 0 to 4	4.36	.02	.18	HFA < TD
Internal response	0.79 (0.89), 0 to 3	1.00 (0.65), 0 to 2	1.33 (1.04), 0 to 3	1.44	.25	.07
Added/invented detail	1.0 (1.30), 0 to 4	1.87 (1.88), 0 to 6	0.87 (1.25), 0 to 4	1.93	.16	.09
Total T-units	8.4 (1.8), 6 to 12	10.9 (4.7), 4 to 20	10.0 (2.3), 6 to 14	2.14	.13	.10

Note. Data are shown as M (SD), range. HFA = high-functioning autism; OO = optimal outcomes; TD = typical development.

Average z-scores.

Average score out of 6 total.

Average proportion (i.e., sum of T-units that fell into the categories of initiating event, attempt, and direct consequences divided by the total number of T-units in the narrative).

Average frequency.