A solution to limitations of cognitive testing in children with intellectual disabilities: the case of fragile X syndrome

Table 3 Correlation of standard and normalized scores with Vineland Adaptive Behavior Composite

Subtest domain	Males and females		Males		Females
Subtest domain	Standard score^a,b	Normalized score^b	Standard score^a	Normalized score	Standard score^a	Normalized score
Arithmetic	0.49	0.69	–	0.33**	0.46*	0.59**
Block design	0.42	0.67	−0.09	0.52**	0.33*	0.49**
Coding	0.61	0.76	0.45*	0.58**	0.49**	0.59**
Comprehension	0.62	0.77	0.29	0.61**	0.54**	0.62**
Digit span	0.55	0.71	0.41*	0.50**	0.43*	0.53**
Information	0.67	0.80	0.35*	0.64**	0.60**	0.66**
Object assembly	0.43	0.58	0.01	0.47**	0.37*	0.41**
Picture arrangement	0.51	0.71	0.11	0.51**	0.43*	0.53**
Picture completion	0.46	0.69	0.11	0.52**	0.23	0.54**
Similarities	0.50	0.70	0.10	0.50**	0.42*	0.52**
Symbol search	0.49	0.73	0.51*	0.52**	0.29*	0.59**
Vocabulary	0.52	0.72	0.15	0.49**	0.42*	0.53**

^aWithout floored value of 1. For males, sample sizes for these correlations ranged from 29 (Block Design) to 50 (Information). For females, sample sizes ranged from 54 (Arithmetic) to 73 (Information).
^bAll correlation values (standard and normalized scores) for combined data significantly different from zero (P < 0.001)
^**P < 0.001
^*P < 0.01 or P < 0.05
– Insufficient data

ISSN: 1866-1955