Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Sep;140(3):571–580. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003584

Table 5.

Comparison of mean test scores for adolescents with and without CFM, by hearing impairment

Test Measure Controls Cases
Hearing Impairment1

No Yes p for group differences
Difference2 95% CI p-value ES3 Difference2 95% CI p-value ES3
WASI Vocabulary Ref −2.2 −4.8 0.4 0.10 −0.2 −1.2 −3.9 1.5 0.39 −0.1 0.22
Matrix Reasoning Ref −1.3 −4.5 2.0 0.45 −0.1 0.6 −2.0 3.1 0.66 0.1 0.65
Full Scale IQ Ref −3.1 −7.2 1.1 0.15 −0.2 −0.1 −3.8 3.6 0.96 −0.01 0.35
WRAT4 Spelling Ref 0.7 −4.9 6.3 0.81 0.05 −0.5 −4.7 3.8 0.83 −0.03 0.94
Math Computation Ref −3.9 −8.6 0.9 0.11 −0.3 −0.4 −4.5 3.7 0.87 −0.02 0.28
Reading Composite Ref −0.7 −5.1 3.7 0.75 −0.1 −4.1 −8.2 0.0 0.05 −0.3 0.15
WJTA-III Writing Sample Ref −1.1 −4.7 2.6 0.57 −0.1 −4.0 −7.6 −0.4 0.03 −0.3 0.09
1

Defined as a hearing threshold >40 dB at frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, or 4000 Hz. 2 controls with hearing impairment excluded from analysis; 12 controls and 10 cases missing hearing screen; 3 controls and 1 case excluded due to room noise

2

Standard scores used for all analyses; adjusted for age at assessment (continuous), gender, race/ethnicity (white, Hispanic, other), income (categorical), primary caregiver’s highest level of education (categorical)

3

ES = Standardized effect size