Table 2.

SC task and SST behavioral performance group and correlational results

	Group differences
	Nonstruggling Readers			Struggling Readers
		95% CI			95% CI
SC task
RT*	3.39 s	[3.13, 3.64]		4.38 s	[4.16, 4.59]
Accuracy*	92.33%	[90.28, 94.39]		83.19%	[81.29, 85.10]
SST
“Go” RT	645.75 ms	[622.81, 668.68]		655.20 ms	[637.98, 672.42]
“Go” accuracy*	91.36%	[89.63, 93.09]		86.27%	[84.66, 87.88]
“Stop” accuracy	55.62%	[54.31, 560.92]		55.71%	[54.69, 56.74]
SSRT	218.47 ms	[195.24, 241.70]		224.27 ms	[206.64, 241.90]
	Correlations across all participants
	WJ-III PC			TOWRE
SC task
RT	r = −0.58**			r = −0.64**
Accuracy	r = 0.61**			r = 0.47**
SST
“Go” RT	n.s.			n.s.
“Go” accuracy	r = 0.26*			r = 0.49**
“Stop” accuracy	n.s.			n.s.
SSRT	n.s.			n.s.

Notes. Behavioral performance for the SC task and SST. SC task results show struggling readers were significantly slower, t(70.87) = 5.60, FDR-corrected P < .001, and less accurate, t(78.21) = −6.60, FDR-corrected P < .001, than the nonstruggling readers; SST results show the groups were significantly different on “Go” accuracy, t(81.15) = −4.34, FDR-corrected P < 0.001; SC = sentence comprehension task; SST = stop-signal task; RT = response time; CI = confidence interval; s = seconds; ms = milliseconds; *P < 0.01, **P < 0.001.