Skip to main content
. 2017 Feb 20;47(5):1403–1415. doi: 10.1007/s10803-017-3057-9

Table 3.

Mean differences between SIB groups on MSEL and Vineland-II at age 24 months

Persistent (n = 44) Incident (n = 31) Transient (n = 48) No SIB (n = 112) F p
M SD M SD M SD M SD
MSEL
 Composite (ELC) 90.3a 18.3 92.4ab 20.6 100.3b 17.9 100.6b 16.7 4.7 0.003
 Expressive language 43.4 11.4 43.4 11.4 48.5 13.2 47.5 11.1 2.5 0.06
 Receptive language 43.4a 13.5 44.7ab 44.7 50.1ab 12.3 50.3b 12.2 3.6 0.02
 Fine motor 46.7 12.0 45.2 11.9 48.2 8.8 49.3 9.8 1.6 0.20
 Gross motor 44.8a 9.3 48.0a 9.9 50.4b 11.2 48.0ab 8.7 3.7 0.01
 Visual reception 45.6a 9.7 49.4ab 13.4 53.3b 10.4 53.2b 10.9 5.8 0.001
Vineland-II
 Composite 93.3a 10.2 96.8ab 10.8 100.8b 12.0 99.9b 8.7 5.4 0.001
 Socialization 93.4a 10.9 96.9ab 11.7 100.6b 13.0 100.5b 9.0 5.2 0.002

P value is omnibus comparison. Post-Hoc Tukey HSD test results with mean differences indicated by letters a and b. Means that do not share a letter are significantly different (p < .05); means that share a letter are not significantly different. MSEL mullen scales of early learning, SIB self-injurious behavior. MSEL ELC and Vineland-II Composite and Socialization scores are standardized (M = 100); MSEL subscale scores at T-scores