Table 4.
Diagnosed (n = 58) | Non-diagnosed (n = 59) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | Range | M | SD | Range | Comparison | |
Overall score (max = 31) | 6.81 | 3.32 | 1–16 | 5.56 | 2.56 | 1–13 | t(115) = −2.29, p = .024, d = 0.42 |
Shallow compensation score (max = 10) | 2.76 | 1.79 | 0–8 | 1.81 | 1.21 | 0–5 | t(99.91) = −3.34, p = .001, d = 0.62 |
Deep compensation score (max = 9) | 1.62 | 1.45 | 0–5 | 1.29 | 1.02 | 0–4 | t(102.11) = −1.43, p = .16, d = 0.27 |
Masking score (max = 6) | 1.53 | 1.11 | 0–4 | 1.61 | 1.11 | 0–4 | t(115) = 0.37, p = .71, d = 0.07 |
Accommodation score (max = 6) | 0.90 | 0.85 | 0–3 | 0.85 | 0.93 | 0–3 | t(115) = − 0.30, p = .77, d = 0.06 |
Greater scores index more self-reported strategies. Effect sizes are reported as Cohen’s d (0.2 = small, 0.5 = medium, 0.8 = large). Analyses were conducted using raw and standardised strategy scores (see the “Methods” section). A similar pattern of results was found; therefore, analyses using raw scores are reported (see Additional file 1 for analyses using standardised scores)