Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(9)
For Affective Disorder, 21% of children scored in the borderline clinical range or higher, with 15% in the clinical range.
We also analyzed a "borderline clinical range" (≥ 93rd percentile in the standardization sample) indicator variable for each scale (Achenbach and Rescorla 2000).
Scores can be examined continuously or by the proportion above a standard cutoff score, for example, > 93rd percentile (borderline clinical range) or > 97th percentile (clinical range).
In the Total Behavioral Problems domain, over a third of the children were in at least the borderline clinical range or higher, with a quarter of the sample scoring in the clinical range.
Because few children fell into the clinical-range category for these scales (n = 3 11), we used the borderline clinical range cut-point as well as continuous raw scores in multivariate analyses.
When children were 5 years old, 4% of their mothers reported behaviors consistent with attention problems and 7% reported ADHD symptoms in the borderline clinical range; again, scores were higher in boys than in girls [see Supplemental Material, Table 1 (doi:10.1289/ehp.1002056)].
Similar(51)
We constructed separate linear regression models for continuous outcomes (e.g., NEPSY Visual Attention, CBCL scale scores) and logistic regression models for categorical outcomes (e.g., borderline clinical-range CBCL scores, markedly atypical K-CPT scores).
40% of the Kawasaki disease group showed elevated internalising scores in the clinical or borderline-clinical range.
Known group validity was analyzed by comparing the standardized mean scores and 95% CIs between children whose parents scored within the normal range on the CBCL and their counterparts in the borderline-clinical range.
This may indeed prove to be a common requirement in long-term management, when it is considered that 40% of the KD group in this study fell within the clinical or borderline-clinical range for internalising problems.
40% of the KD group were shown to have internalising scores in the clinical or borderline-clinical range, representing an incidence greater than twice that of the control groups.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com