Aim 3: Does executive functioning explain differences in social
adjustment across survivors of ALL and controls?
The significant pairwise differences for BASC-3 Social Withdrawal
(survivors vs. controls) gleaned in the first aim were retained for the
third aim.11Because the groups being compared (survivor vs.
control) were from separate families, the multilevel approach was not
needed and a traditional ordinary least squares approach was used.
The theoretical model is depicted in Fig. 1. The direct path
representing mean differences in BASC-3 Social Withdrawal scores in
survivors vs. controls (path c) was statistically significantb =-6.09, p =.006. The path representing mean differences in
BRIEF-2 scores in survivors vs. controls (path a) was not significant,b =-2.50, p =.299. The path representing the relationship
between BRIEF-2 scores and BASC-3 Social Withdrawal scores (path b) was
significant, b =0.29, p =.005. The path representing mean
differences in BASC-3 Social Withdrawal scores in survivors vs. controls
when BRIEF-2 scores were included in the model (path c’) was significantb =-5.36, p =.012. The indirect effect of the survivor vs.
control group differences in BASC-3 Social Withdrawal scores as mediated
by BRIEF-2 scores was not significant, b =-0.73, 95% CI (-2.60,
0.57). This suggests that executive functioning does not explain
differences in social adjustment between survivors and controls, but
rather that the relationship appears to be direct.