Descriptive group data for this analysis are included in Table 3 and in the supplemental table. For the third analysis, which included subjects with AE and non-exposed children with ADHD, a 2-class solution fit better than a 1-class solution (AIC: 13562 vs. 13979; sBIC: 13579 vs. 13990; Entropy index for 2-class model = .83). For the resulting 2-class solution, 143 participants were assigned to profile 1 (51% of the sample) and 140 participants were assigned to profile 2 (49% of the sample). As shown in Table 6, 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. With the exception of one variable (CANTAB Simple Reaction Time), effect sizes (Cohen’s d) ranged from 0.40 to 2.22.
