Sentences with phrase «differences between groups»

No significant differences between groups of parents were found in most demographic variables (parents» age, level of education, place of residence, family income, child's age and gender).

As a general limitation that applies to the current DTI research at large we recognise that FA differences between groups could be a result of several factors (myelination, axon density, axon diameter, membrane permeability, or even axonal orientation and fiber crossing) and that simple DTI tensor calculations as employed in our study may not conclusively link the regional abnormalities to any specific mechanism (Jones et al. 2013).

Pairwise comparisons were completed to assess differences between these groups.

Oppositional defiant and CDs were more prevalent in non-DS than in DS cases; however, the differences between both groups were not statistically significant.

Although online and paper participants did not differ significantly on the assessed variables and relationships, other systematic differences between groups may have affected the data.

To control for initial differences between the groups, intercepts of both the mediator and the outcome were also regressed on the treatment status (see Fig. 1).

Significant differences between groups were reported for all DERS subscales and total DERS (Table 2).

The internal consistency of the CBCL in our sample, specifically the School subscale, was somewhat low, reducing statistical power (Bacon, 2004); however, our sample size and matched design provided enough power to uncover as statistically significant even small differences between the groups on this measure.

There were significant differences between the groups in slope means, with the Home - Start group showing a larger improvement over time in supportive parenting than the comparison group.

MANCOVA (covarying for any between group differences in age, gender, race, and parent occupation) and Cohen's d effect size statistic were used to investigate differences between groups on nighttime sleep problems.

We included both ethnic groups because of the documented differences in prevalence of depression among them and our interest in determining whether there were differences between groups in the contributions to depressive affect.

PCA and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results did not show significant differences between groups.

Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain whether our null findings reflect the fact that CU traits have a limited impact on emotion recognition and affective empathy within CD populations, whether they are due to the fact that we had limited statistical power to detect differences between groups, or whether they are explained by the restricted range of CU traits in our sample (as few of our CD participants had very high levels of CU traits).

There were no significant differences between any groups in attention and internalizing problems, social competence, peer interactions, student - teacher relationships, or parent - teacher involvement.

Students» reports of victimization in intervention schools declined across the three time points for the intervention group, but there were no significant differences between the groups.

There were no significant differences between the groups in the frequency of non-acceptance behaviors (e.g., frustration, ignoring) and dominance behaviors (e.g., criticizing, refusing to comply), nor in the total number of problem behaviors reported.

There were no significant differences between the groups, which both reported increased aggression over time.

Students» reports of indirect aggression increased over time for the intervention group, but there were no significant differences between the groups.

We therefore conducted two other analyses to better capture possible differences between the groups.

We also discuss the factors accounting for differences between groups of dyads and between parents and adult children.

As shown in Table 5, multilevel analyses found that, as rated by teachers, beneficial outcomes were generally maintained (as indicated by the lack of statistically significant differences between groups) or continued to improve following ROE completion, with one exception: Some of the ROE1 gain in prosocial behaviour was not maintained.

Limitations included significant differences between groups.

The authors note that at the one - year timepoint, data was only available on 17 families and the differences between the groups were no longer statically significant.

MeDIP was selected among many other methods for methylation profiling because it is one of the few methods that is feasible for studying genome - wide methylation differences between groups of subjects.

Although significant reductions in anxiety symptoms were reported by the end of the MBCT - C program, no significant differences between groups were found as well as the relationship between mindfulness and reading comprehension was not supported in this study.

There were no baseline differences between groups.

Families who chose to participate in the program were compared to nonparticipating families; there were significant differences between the groups at baseline.

Unclear risk of bias: it is unclear whether there were differences between groups or this information was not available from study authors.

Children in all three groups reported significant and marked change over time, but differences between groups were not significant.

The differences between these groups are illustrated in the chart below.

There were no significant differences between groups in hostile attributions and behavioral intentions during both years.

Low risk of bias: there were no treatment differences between groups other than the main intervention.

There were no significant differences between groups in gender, race, age, or family structure.

Despite extensive comparisons, there was no evidence of systematic differences between these groups, suggesting that losses to follow - up did not have an adverse effect on study randomization.

However, there were no significant differences between the groups in measures of fear of being injured and fear of bad things happening.

Comparisons of the 2 groups on this series of measures showed no significant differences between the groups.

Despite this, the final sample size with 180 patients being randomised was sufficiently powered to detect differences between the groups.

Comparisons of the 2 groups with this series of measures showed no significant differences between the groups.

Researchers found clear physiological differences between the groups.

However, there were no significant differences between the groups on self - reports of delinquency as measured by the Elliott Delinquency Scale.

There were no significant differences between groups.

Cost differences between groups — The conduct disorder group cost 10 times more than the no problems group and the conduct problem group over three times more (table 4).

Limitations include small sample size, issues with the randomization of participants that resulted in differences between the groups at baseline, reliance on self - reported measures as reduction in symptoms were significant for adolescent reports but not for parent report, and generalizability due to the primarily female participant gender.

Within a science that stresses the importance of comparing differences between groups, I am surpised that only one of the attachment styles was elaborated on, and neither of the others mentioned.

A small number of RCTs investigating stress management, group CBT or other psychological therapies compared with waiting list / usual care did not consistently find significant differences between the groups.

When children divide or are divided into two groups, GS theory predicts that any preexisting differences between the groups will be widened by contrast effects between groups and assimilation within them.

There were no differences between groups in associated eating disorders and psychiatric symptoms or maintenance of gains during follow up.

Overall response rates in both groups were high, but there were no differences between groups in improvements on associated variables (for example, interpersonal problems or dietary restraint).

Similarly, Newman et al13 rated mothers with BPD of 16 - month - olds as less sensitive than healthy controls, and Hobson et al21 also found their mothers with BPD to be more «intrusively insensitive» in their interactions with their 1 - year - olds, compared with healthy controls, and these differences remained once demographic differences between the groups were controlled.

Three months after the initial assessment there were no statistically significant differences between the groups on Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores: 15.6 versus 16.0, mean difference − 0.37, 95 % CI (− 3.28 to 2.53) or Children's Global Assessment Scale scores: 64.6 versus 60.1, mean difference 4.49, 95 % CI (− 0.98 to 9.96).