. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 May 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Affect Disord. 2020 Mar 5;268:109–117. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.016

Table 2.

Proportion Over Cumulative Follow-up Time with “Fair/Poor” Psychosocial Functioning by Latent Class Growth Analyses (LCGA) Mood Trajectory Class.

	Class 1 (n = 88) M (SD)	Class 2 (n = 127) M (SD)	Class 3 (n = 70) M (SD)	Class 4 (n = 82) M (SD)	F	P	Partial ƞ²
Interpersonal Relations, F amily	.34 (.34) ^a	.55 (.30) ^b	.61 (.26) ^b	.73 (.24) ^c	26.58	<.001	.18
Interpersonal Relations, Friends	.23 (.23) ^a	.41 (.29) ^b	.48 (.33) ^b,c	.56 (.30) ^c	20.95	<.001	.15
School/Work	.27 (.26) ^a	.44 (.23) ^b	.51 (.2,) ^b	.60 (.25) ^c	26.93	<.001	.18
Recreation	.12 (.15) ^a	.27 (.23) ^b	.23 (.22) ^b	.39 (.28) ^c	20.25	<.001	.14
Satisfaction	.20 (.22) ^a	.41 (.26) ^b	.46 (.25) ^b	.61 (.28) ^c	39.88	<.001	.25

Note: Superscripts that are different indicate significant pairwise contrasts.

Means represent proportion of cumulative follow-up time with “fair to poor” psychosocial functioning.

“Fair to Poor” psychosocial functioning: Adolescent Longitudinal Interval Follow-Up Evaluation (A-LIFE) Psychosocial Functioning Schedule (PSF) scores 3–5.

Class 1: Predominantly Euthymic; Class 2: Moderately Euthymic; Class 3: Ill with Improving Course; Class 4: Predominantly Ill