Descriptive group data for this analysis are included in Table 3 and in the supplemental table. For the second analysis, which included subjects in the AE/Non-FAS group and the CON group, a 2-class solution also fit better than a 1-class solution (AIC: 13595 vs. 14210; sBIC: 13614 vs. 14222; Entropy index for 2-class model = .84). For the resulting 2-class solution, 133 participants were assigned to profile 1 (44% of the sample) and 169 participants were assigned to profile 2 (56% of the sample). As shown in Table 5, 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 0.64 to 1.93.
