. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Apr 24.

Published in final edited form as: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2017 Apr;146(4):495–511. doi: 10.1037/xge0000281

Table 3.

Group characteristics as outlined by standardized measures of phonological processing, reading, and spelling


		TYPMUS	DYSMUS	DYSNonMUS	F (max df = 2,49)
		Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD
*Group Characteristics*
WRIT	Verbal IQ	117.78 ± 11.78	110.11 ± 8.17	107.19 ± 12.07	5.08^*^a
	Nonverbal IQ	114.89 ± 7.23	113.45 ± 5.34	111.34 ± 6.54	1.19
	Sight Word
TOWRE	Efficiency	105.94 ± 8.44	87.42 ± 7.60	80.43 ± 6.62	50.23^*^b
	Phonemic
	Decoding	114.35 ± 6.78	87.52 ± 6.04	84.12 ± 8.81	89.30^*^^c
WRAT	Reading	113.88 ± 6.41	99.36 ± 7.19	95 ± 7.28	33.76^***^c
	Spelling	113.47 ± 6.34	97 ± 7.13	97.18 ± 6.75	33.56^***^c
	Digit Memory	109.82 ± 14.24	89.47 ± 10.25	85.68 ± 11.93	19.21^***^c
CTOPP	Elision	107.06 ± 3.98	91.06 ± 12.98	87.18 ± 16.12	12.75^***^c
	Blending	115.59 ± 8.27	102.22 ± 13.97	95 ± 13.67	12.08^***^c
	Phonological
	Awareness
	Composite	113.59 ± 6.01	95.83 ± 12.78	90.125 ± 12.47	21.15^***^c
	Rapid Digit
	Naming	110.29 ± 7.39	96.44 ± 13.82	87.81 ± 11.69	16.60^***^c
	Rapid Letter
	Naming	106.76 ± 11.45	87.72 ± 10.69	83.87 ± 11.84	19.75^***^c
	Rapid Naming
	Composite	110.24 ± 10.18	90.5 ± 13.81	82.94 ± 13.58	20.76^***^c

p < 0.05

^**

p < 0.01

^***

p < 0.001

Games-Howell post-hoc tests on one-way ANOVA by group found that TYPMUS performed significantly better than DYSNonMUS; DYSMUS and DYSNonMUS did not significantly differ

Games-Howell post-hoc tests on one-way ANOVA by group found that TYPMUS performed significantly better than DYSMUS, who are in turn better than DYSNonMUS

Games-Howell post-hoc tests on one-way ANOVA by group found that TYPMUS performed significantly better than DYSMUS and DYSNonMUS; DYSMUS and DYSNonMUS did not significantly differ