Table 5.

Mean percentage of accuracy (standard error) across all four blocks of the phonological–visual linking task with Bayes inclusion factors and interpretations with nonverbal intelligence as a covariate.

Word length	Phonological similarity	Visual similarity	Location	Orthography	Verbs
Monolingual
69.4 (1.2)	Similar: 60.5 (1.5) Dissimilar: 61.8 (1.5)	62.6 (1.4)	63.0 (1.4)	69.8 (1.4)	53.7 (1.5)
n = 159	n = 162	n = 162	n = 160	n = 130	n = 155
Bilingual
68.7 (1.9)	Similar: 61.8 (2.2) Dissimilar: 60.7 (2.1)	61.6 (2.1)	60.3 (1.9)	71.1 (2.2)	50.4 (2.0)
n = 76	n = 75	n = 75	n = 76	n = 71	n = 73
Bayes inclusionary factor
Groups tend to not differ (BFINC = 0.35, anecdotal) Interaction is null (BFINC = 0.19, moderate)	Groups tend to not differ (BFINC = 0.51, anecdotal) a Groups tend to differ in interaction (BFINC = 2.14, anecdotal)	Groups tend to not differ (BFINC = 0.36, anecdotal) Interaction is null (BFINC = 0.16, moderate)	Groups do not differ (BFINC = 0.31, moderate) Interaction is null (BFINC = 0.16, moderate)	Groups tend to not differ (BFINC = 0.98, anecdotal) Interaction is null (BFINC = 0.17, moderate)	Groups do not differ (BFINC = 0.18, moderate) No interactions possible in this game

Note. We checked for interactions but reported the findings for the strongest model that included group. The Bayes inclusion factor “…compares models that contain the effect to the equivalent models stripped of the effect.” (JASP 0.8.6), an analysis suggested by S. Mathôt (Wagenmakers et al., 2018).

^a Post hoc tests showed moderate evidence for no differences between the groups in both the similar (BF₁₀ = 0.16) and dissimilar (BF₁₀ = 0.17) conditions.