Descriptive group data for this analysis are included in Table 3 and in the supplemental table. For the first analysis, which included alcohol-exposed (AE/FAS) and CON groups, a 2-class solution fit better than a 1-class solution (AIC: 11910 vs. 12581; sBIC: 11923 vs. 12590; Entropy index for 2-class model = .89). For the 2-class solution, 106 participants were assigned to profile 1 (40% of the sample) and 158 participants were assigned to profile 2 (60% of the sample). As shown in Table 4, the CRMs indicate that individuals in profile 1 perform more poorly than individuals in profile 2 for each of the 11 observed variables characterizing the profiles. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) ranged from 0.55 to 2.38.
