Table 8. Results for exploratory analysis of content versus non-content mazes.
| ASD | SLI | TD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA | .02 | .10 | −.31 |
| FSIQ | −.05 | .17 | .15 |
| VIQ | −.08 | −.15 | .11 |
| PIQ | .00 | .17 | .18 |
| GEC | .02 | .17 | .03 |
| CELF | |||
| CLS | −.13 | −.06 | n.a. |
| ELI | −.14 | −.01 | n.a. |
| RLI | −.13 | .13 | n.a. |
| MLUM | .11 | .23 | −.04 |
| CCC-2 | |||
| GCC | −.04 | −.10 | −.04 |
| SIDI | −.02 | −.12 | −.24 |
| SCQ COM | .10 | .40 | −.13 |
| ADOS SA CSS | −.19 | .02 | .01 |
Associations between per-child content mazes (versus filler) use and age, intellectual ability, executive function, language, and social ability, as measured by Kendall’s τb. Children in the TD group did not complete the CELF. CA = chronological age in years; FSIQ = full-scale IQ; VIQ = verbal IQ; PIQ = performance IQ; GEC = BRIEF global executive composite; CLS = CELF core language score; ELI = CELF expressive language index; RLI = CELF receptive language index; MLUM = mean length of utterance in morphemes; GCC = CCC-2 general communication composite; SIDI = CCC-2 social-interaction deviance index; SCQ COM = SCQ communication total score [66]; ADOS SA CSS = ADOS-G social affect calibrated severity score; there were no statistically significant differences at P = .05 after correction for false discovery rate [77].