Table 5.
Sagittal analysis—Witts analysis: Gender, Types of Cleft and Gender times types of cleft two-way ANOVA analysis results.
| Gender | Type | Mean | SD | Cleft type | Mean | Multiple comparison | MD | SE | p-value | 95% CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower bound | Upper bound | ||||||||||||
| Male | NC | 0.831 | 2.769 | NC | 0.474 | NC | vs | BCLP | 3.690* | 1.184 | 0.002 | 1.344 | 6.036 |
| BCLP | −4.233 | 5.479 | BCLP | −3.216 | vs | UCLP | 3.073* | 1.027 | 0.003 | 1.038 | 5.108 | ||
| UCLP | −3.804 | 3.938 | UCLP | −2.599 | vs | UCL | 1.110 | 1.427 | 0.438 | −1.717 | 3.937 | ||
| UCL | 0.326 | 5.514 | UCL | −0.635 | vs | UCLA | 1.543 | 1.708 | 0.368 | −1.842 | 4.927 | ||
| UCLA | 0.107 | 5.424 | UCLA | −1.068 | BCLP | vs | UCLP | −0.617 | 1.119 | 0.582 | −2.833 | 1.599 | |
| Total | −2.235 | 4.979 | vs | UCL | −2.581 | 1.494 | 0.087 | −5.541 | .379 | ||||
| Female | NC | 0.117 | 3.678 | vs | UCLA | −2.148 | 1.765 | 0.226 | −5.644 | 1.348 | |||
| BCLP | −2.199 | 5.031 | UCLP | vs | UCL | −1.964 | 1.373 | 0.155 | −4.684 | 0.756 | |||
| UCLP | −1.395 | 3.878 | vs | UCLA | −1.531 | 1.663 | 0.359 | −4.826 | 1.765 | ||||
| UCL | −1.597 | 3.169 | UCL | vs | UCLA | 0.433 | 1.936 | 0.823 | −3.403 | 4.268 | |||
| UCLA | −2.243 | 3.425 | |||||||||||
| Total | −1.107 | 3.873 | |||||||||||
| Total | NC | 0.440 | 3.266 | p-value | PES | ||||||||
| BCLP | −3.672 | 5.350 | Gender | 0.909 | 0.000 | ||||||||
| UCLP | −2.629 | 4.048 | Cleft type | 0.013 | 0.106 | ||||||||
| UCL | −0.562 | 4.515 | Gender * cleft type | 0.274 | 0.044 | ||||||||
| UCLA | −0.677 | 4.764 | |||||||||||
| Total | −1.740 | 4.544 | |||||||||||
SD, standard deviation; MD, mean difference; SE, standard error; CI, confidence interval; PES, partial eta square.
*
= Significant difference.