|

shape2potato |

And teacher-defined groups. These results are consistent with previous research with epidemiologic samples linking AIS and NS to CD symptoms concurrently11 and prospectively.6 Nevertheless, our findings diverge from studies that considered AIS and NS symptoms dimensionally, which found NS (but not AIS) predicted CD symptoms.7,10 It is noteworthy that these relations were observed with and without
And teacher-defined groups. These results are consistent with previous research with epidemiologic samples linking AIS and NS to CD symptoms concurrently11 and prospectively.6 Nevertheless, our findings diverge from studies that considered AIS and NS symptoms dimensionally, which found NS (but not AIS) predicted CD symptoms.7,10 It is noteworthy that these relations were observed with and without
Sistency, routine, socialization) are the progenitors of AIS reactions in home versus school settings,8 which is well-illustrated in our results. For example, mothers describe their offspring with AIS as "difficult as a toddler," whereas teachers (who have spent a lot less time with the youth) do not. As parents are typically responsible for seeking intervention, it is not surprising that mother-
Sistency, routine, socialization) are the progenitors of AIS reactions in home versus school settings,8 which is well-illustrated in our results. For example, mothers describe their offspring with AIS as "difficult as a toddler," whereas teachers (who have spent a lot less time with the youth) do not. As parents are typically responsible for seeking intervention, it is not surprising that mother-
Uture research should also consider a wider range of risk factors as potential validators of teacher-defined diagnostic groups. Our findings provide further empirical validation for the recommendation to consider AIS and NS separately, though this recommendation will most assuredly undergo future modifications as the significance of informant, environmental precipitants, age, and symptom specific
Actual time spent tampering with the tablets and the self-reported maximum time participants would be willing to spend tampering with tablets were analyzed with paired t-tests. A mixed-model repeated measures ANOVA with the order of tablet presentation (OXM first or DCR first) as a between-groups factor revealed no differences in continuous outcome measures. Additional data were descriptively rep
Actual time spent tampering with the tablets and the self-reported maximum time participants would be willing to spend tampering with tablets were analyzed with paired t-tests. A mixed-model repeated measures ANOVA with the order of tablet presentation (OXM first or DCR first) as a between-groups factor revealed no differences in continuous outcome measures. Additional data were descriptively rep
Actual time spent tampering with the tablets and the self-reported maximum time participants would be willing to spend tampering with tablets were analyzed with paired t-tests. A mixed-model repeated measures ANOVA with the order of tablet presentation (OXM first or DCR first) as a between-groups factor revealed no differences in continuous outcome measures. Additional data were descriptively rep