Table 5.
Hierarchical regression analyses predicting early academic performance at Time 1 and 2 from neuropsychological deficits at Time 1
| Word Reading | Numeration | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time 1 | Time 2 | Time 1 | Time 2 | ||||||||
| ΔR 2 | ß | ΔR 2 | ß | ΔR 2 | ß | ΔR 2 | ß | ||||
| Step 1: Covariatesa | 0.27*** | 0.23*** | 0.36*** | 0.26*** | |||||||
| Step 2: IAC | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.06+ | |||||||
| KCPT omission error | 0.01 | 0.03 | − 0.17* | − 0.17+ | |||||||
| KCPT commission error | − 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.00 | |||||||
| DeFT | − 0.02 | 0.01 | − 0.01 | − 0.18+ | |||||||
| Step 2: DAv | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | |||||||
| MIDA | − 0.06 | − 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.08 | |||||||
| Step 2: TP/WM | 0.06* | 0.06+ | 0.03+ | 0.05 | |||||||
| Picture location | − 0.10 | − 0.21+ | − 0.04 | − 0.30* | |||||||
| Time discrimination | − 0.20* | − 0.17 | − 0.08 | 0.04 | |||||||
| Time reproduction | − 0.07 | 0.05 | − 0.17* | − 0.05 | |||||||
| Step 2: | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.11+ | |||||||
| KCPT omission error | 0.04 | 0.07 | − 0.15* | − 0.14 | |||||||
| KCPT commission error | − 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.09 | − 0.00 | |||||||
| DeFT | − 0.04 | − 0.00 | − 0.02 | − 0.17+ | |||||||
| MIDA | − 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.13 | |||||||
| Picture location | − 0.08 | − 0.23+ | − 0.04 | − 0.29* | |||||||
| Time discrimination | − 0.21* | − 0.18 | − 0.07 | 0.03 | |||||||
| Time reproduction | − 0.08 | 0.03 | − 0.16* | 0.00 | |||||||
Note. + p < .10; * p < .05; *** p < .001. Standardized regression coefficients (β) of the variables at the final step of each analysis are given.
a Age, general ability, treatment condition, and monthly household income were included as covariates.
IAC = Inhibitory and attentional control deficit; DAv = Delay aversion; TP/WM = Time perception/working memory deficit; KCPT = Conners’ Kiddie Continuous Performance Test; DeFT = Delay frustration task; MIDA = Maudsley Index of Childhood Delay Aversion.