Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica

Psychology: Research and Review

Table 4 Bootstrapped adjusted means and post hoc analyses for EFA’s scores as a function of ID group

From: Evidence of validity and reliability of the adaptive functioning scale for intellectual disability (EFA-DI)

Groups	EFA-DI’s domains
Groups	Social M (CI)	Practical M (CI)	Conceptual M (CI)	Adaptive functioning M (CI)
Typical development	2.54 (2.42–2.68) ^abc	2.65(2.49–2.81) ^abc	2.77 (2.61–2.94)^abc	2.60 (2.43–2.77)^abc
Mild ID	0.43 (0.24–0.64) ^ade	− 0.62 (− 1.41–0.26)^ade	− 1.36 (− 1.86 to − 0.76) ^ade	− 0.26 (− 0.63–0.22) ^ade
Moderate ID	− 0.16 (− 0.58–0.25) ^bd	− 1.45 (− 2.07 to − 0.84) ^bd	− 2.41(− 2.98 to − 1.84) ^bd	− 0.91 (− 1.29 to − 0.54) ^bd
Severe/Profound ID	− 0.60 (− 1.21–0.14) ^ce	− 2.35 (− 3.14 to − 1.45) ^ce	− 3.14 (− 3.63 to − 2.55) ^ce	− 1.52 (− 2.17 to − 0.93)^ce

Means were adjusted for participants’ sex and age. The superscript letters identify the means for adaptive functioning that differed significantly (p < 0.05) from the type of diagnosis reported. Two equal letters in each column indicate that means are significantly different
IC 95% bootstrap confidence interval

Back to article page