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.