Common use of Group Differences in Informant Report Clause in Contracts

Group Differences in Informant Report. (Table 2, Figure 2): Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed an Informant (child, parent) x Group (HC, GAD, SAD, GAD+SAD) interaction for Total (F(3, 325) = 9.708, p < .001, η2 = 0.082), GA (F(3, 325) = 17.326, p < . 001, η2 = 0.138), and SA scores (F (3, 325)= 6.340, p < .001, η2 = .055). Figure 2 depicts significant child-parent discrepancies in post-hoc analyses within each group (see supplementary Table S6 for within-group mean difference scores). Overall, HC child-report was higher than parent-report on all three scales. The same pattern emerged for SAD on the Total scale. GAD and GAD+SAD child-reports were lower than parent-report on the GA subscale. No other differences were noted for the SA subscale.

Group Differences in Informant Report. (Table 2, Figure 2): ). Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed an Informant (child, parent) x Group (HC, GAD, SAD, GAD+SAD) interaction for Total (F(3, 325) = 9.708, p < .001, η2 ƞ2 = 0.082), GA (F(3, 325) = 17.326, p < . 001.001, η2 ƞ2 = 0.138), and SA scores (F (3, 325)= 6.340, p < .001, η2 ƞ2 = .055). Figure 2 depicts significant child-parent discrepancies in post-hoc analyses within each group (see supplementary Table S6 for within-group mean difference scores). Overall, HC child-report was higher than parent-parent- report on all three scales. The same pattern emerged for SAD on the Total scale. GAD and GAD+SAD child-reports were lower than parent-report on the GA subscale. No other differences were noted for the SA subscale.

Group Differences in Informant Report. (Table 2, Figure 2): 1). Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed an Informant (child, parent) x Group (HC, GAD, SAD, GAD+SAD) interaction for Total (F(3F (3, 325) = 9.708497)= 15.79, p < .001, η2 ƞ2 = 0.082.087), GA (F(3F (3, 325) = 17.326497)= 32.017, p < . 001.001, η2 ƞ2 = 0.138.116), and SA scores (F (3, 325)= 6.340497)= 19.50, p < .001, η2 ƞ2 = .055.093). Figure 2 1 depicts significant child-parent discrepancies in post-hoc analyses within each group (see supplementary Table S6 for within-group mean difference scoresscores and corresponding p-values for t-tests). Overall, Pairwise comparisons demonstrate HC child-report was higher than parent-report on all three scalesscales (p’s < .001). The same pattern emerged for GAD+SAD, ▇▇▇, and SAD on the Total scale. GAD and GAD+SAD child-reports were report was lower for GA scores than parent-report on the GA subscale(p’s < .01,). No other differences were noted SAD child-report was lower for the SA subscale.scores than parent-report (p < .01)

Group Differences in Informant Report. (Table 2, Figure 21): Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed an Informant (child, parent) x Group (HC, GAD, SAD, GAD+SAD) interaction for Total (F(3F (3, 325) = 9.708497)= 15.79, p < .001, η2 = 0.082.087), GA (F(3F (3, 325) = 17.326497)= 32.017, p < . 001, η2 = 0.138.116), and SA scores (F (3, 325)= 6.340497)= 19.50, p < .001, η2 = .055.093). Figure 2 1 depicts significant child-parent discrepancies in post-hoc analyses within each group (see supplementary Table S6 for within-group mean difference scoresscores and corresponding p- Author Manuscript ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. Page 9 values for t-tests). Overall, Pairwise comparisons demonstrate HC child-report was higher than parent-report on all three scalesscales (p’s < .001). The same pattern emerged for GAD+SAD, ▇▇▇, and SAD on the Total scale. GAD and GAD+SAD child-reports were report was lower for GA scores than parent-report on the GA subscale(p’s < .01,). No other differences were noted SAD child-report was lower for the SA subscale.scores than parent-report (p < .01)