. 2018 Oct 23;9:1997. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01997

Table 5.

Evidence (BF₁₀) for and against the effect of language similarity on each ability.

			Sliding contrast							Simple contrast

Ability	Linear trend		Mono vs. Bidial		Bidial vs. Sim		Sim vs. Dissim		Mono vs. Sim		Mono vs. Dissim

	BF₁₀	% error	BF₁₀	% error	BF₁₀	% error	BF₁₀	% error	BF₁₀	% error	BF₁₀	% error
Linguistic ability
Linguistic accuracy	30.20	±1.46	0.27	±1.67	0.53	±2.30	1.64	± 0.72	0.29	±0.91	7.11	±0.84
Linguistic speed	0.45	±2.17	0.29	±2.20	0.28	±1.11	0.27	±1.82	0.39	±1.04	0.36	±1.23
Executive functions
Inhibition	0.35	±1.41	0.27	±1.73	0.49	±0.96	0.34	±0.96	0.35	±1.44	0.27	±2.63
Monitoring	0.75	±0.91	1.07	±2.78	0.26	±1.88	0.33	±0.74	1.83	±1.10	0.43	±1.19
Mixing	0.68	±0.81	0.71	±3.97	0.45	±0.86	0.37	±1.37	1.11	±0.69	0.66	±0.91
Shifting	0.37	±0.98	0.32	±0.94	0.72	±1.56	1.02	±1.20	0.34	±1.24	0.32	±0.99
Working memory	0.74	±0.78	3.85	±1.83	0.39	±1.37	0.35	±1.05	1.24	±0.89	0.74	±0.75

Mono, Monolinguals; Bidial, Bidialectals; Sim, Similar Bilinguals; Dissim, Dissimilar Bilinguals. All models included the average parents’ education level as a proxy for socio-economic status as an additional predictor. Values printed in bold indicate at least substantial evidence for (BF₁₀ ≥ 3) or against (BF₁₀ ≤ 0.33) the alternative hypothesis.