TABLE 2.
Significant Spearman correlations for language, EF, and selective attention measures.
| Measure | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ||
| Bus Story Test | 1 | Information | – | |||||||||||||
| 2 | Syntactic complexity | 0.67 | – | . | ||||||||||||
| 3 | Unified predicates | 0.80 | 0.73 | – | ||||||||||||
| 4 | Morphosyntactic accuracy | 0.77 | 0.67 | 0.94 | – | |||||||||||
| PPVT | 5 | Receptive vocabulary | 0.57 | 0.41 | 0.40 | 0.38 | – | |||||||||
| SCDI | 6 | Expressive vocabulary | 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.19 | 0.34 | – | ||||||||
| 7 | Expressive morphologyc | 0.32 | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.21 | 0.38 | 0.45 | – | ||||||||
| DCCS | 8 | EFs; cognitive flexibility | 0.33 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.22 | 0.42 | 0.22 | 0.26 | – | ||||||
| Flanker Fish Task | 9 | EFs; inhibition | 0.33 | 0.25 | 0.18 | 0.15 | 0.44 | 0.17 | 0.31 | 0.42 | – | |||||
| FDS | 10 | EFs; short-term/working memory | 0.31 | 0.17 | 0.23 | 0.25 | 0.31 | 0.16 | 0.19 | 0.30 | 0.29 | – | ||||
| BDS | 11 | EFs; working memory | 0.43 | 0.22 | 0.29 | 0.26 | 0.56 | 0.27 | 0.36 | 0.36 | 0.47 | 0.41 | – | |||
| HTKS | 12 | EFs; inhibition, working memory | 0.42 | 0.30 | 0.25 | 0.19 | 0.49 | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.45 | 0.36 | 0.39 | 0.43 | – | ||
| AudAt | 13 | Early attention effect | 0.24 | 0.27 | – | |||||||||||
| 14 | Late attention effect | 0.43 | – |
All correlations were significant at p < 0.001 except associations between morphosyntactic accuracy and the flanker task, morphosyntactic accuracy and early attention effect, SCDI vocabulary and FDS, SCDI vocabulary and the Flanker task (p < 0.01), and between early attention effect and unified predicates (p < 0.05).