Table 4.

Group comparisons of strategy scores

	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)