Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Jan 10.
Published in final edited form as: Neurotoxicology. 2016 Jan 25;53:165–172. doi: 10.1016/j.neuro.2016.01.009

Table 5.

Linear regression models of neurobehavioral tests and parent’s occupation (agricultural children vs. non-agricultural) at two time points and change over time, negative coefficients [b] indicate that performance is worse with increasing exposure.

NB Outcomec Agricultural children vs. non-agricultural children
First visita,d
Second visita,d
Difference in NB performancee
N β (SE) N β (SE) N β (SE)
Digit span
Forward 182 −0.34 (0.15) 151 0.16 (0.18) 125 0.26 (0.19)
Reverse 139 0.04 (0.14) 127 0.06 (0.18) 92 0.09 (0.23)
Finger tapping
Taps, P 187 2.27 (1.40) 152 0.95 (1.59) 128 −1.67 (1.68)
Taps, NP 187 2.6 (1.38) 151 1.25 (1.61) 127 −1.73 (1.56)
Match-to-sample
Number correct 176 0.30 (0.33) 151 −0.42 (0.32) 122 −0.27 (0.43)
Latency 176 −79.43 (148.79) 151 −17.47 (204.19) 122 57.47 (264.97)
Symbol-digit
Latency 180 132.72 (197.19) 146 366.22 (227.36) 121 27.54 (214.00)
Continuous performance
Correct Hits 182 0.02 (0.02) 146 0.02 (0.02) 122 0.01 (0.03)
d prime 175 0.24 (0.15) 146 0.27 (0.16) 122 0.16 (0.22)
Divided attention
Taps, P 177 2.33 (1.33) 146 −1.05 (1.53) 117 −4.13 (1.92)
Taps, NP 177 1.45 (1.32) 145 0.79 (1.36) 116 −1.03 (1.49)
Taps with song, P 177 1.71 (1.59) 146 −0.15 (1.53) 117 −3.89 (1.93)
Taps with song, NP 177 1.70 (1.30) 145 0.26 (1.39) 116 −1.77 (1.45)
Times sang song, P taps 181 −0.24 (0.12) 150 −0.37 (0.14) 119 −0.29 (0.16)
Times sang song, NP taps 183 −0.15 (0.12) 146 −0.48 (0.14)b 121 −0.36 (0.14)
Object memory
Utilization 198 0.65 (0.30) 155 0.10 (0.29) 134 −0.70 (0.46)
Immediate recall 198 −0.38 (0.29) 155 0.58 (0.39) 134 0.77 (0.47)
Recognition 192 −0.17 (0.29) 152 −0.04 (0.14) 127 0.45 (0.26)
Purdue pegboard
Pegs, P 198 0.06 (0.23) 158 0.13 (0.28) 136 −0.25 (0.32)
Pegs, NP 197 0.23 (0.24) 157 −0.27 (0.26) 135 −0.66 (0.31)
Pegs, both 196 0.36 (0.25) 157 0.07 (0.33) 135 −0.50 (0.38)
Visual motor integration
VMI score 188 −0.23 (0.43) 160 −0.83 (0.55) 131 −0.63 (0.62)
Signature test
P Hand 190 −1.36 (1.24) 155 −1.94 (1.37) 130 1.23 (1.27)
NP Hand 187 −0.73 (1.76) 152 −1.23 (1.93) 127 1.38 (2.71)

Abbreviations: NB, neurobehavioral; β, regression parameter estimates; SE, standard errors; P, preferred hand; NP, non-preferred hand. Significance (p <0.05) marked in bold numbers and grey cell background.

a

Models represent the effect of agricultural children vs. non-agricultural children (referent group) on continuous neurobehavioral outcomes [β].

b

Significant after Bonferroni corrections (p <0.0021) with a p-value = 0.001.

c

All outcomes have been standardized so that a negative coefficient indicates that performance is worse with increasing exposure.

d

Parent’s occupation Time 1 and Time 2 models adjusted for age, gender, and CBCL external score.

e

Longitudinal parent’s occupation models adjusted for HOME score and mother’s education. Additional test-specific confounders include: gender (name writing tests), and computer use (name writing tests and object memory tests).