Table 3 Sidak post hoc pairwise comparisons of TCI-R dimensions: effect sizes and Power.
TCI-R dimension | Comparison | Mean diff. | Std. error | p-value | Cohen’s d [95% CI] | Statistical power (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Novelty seeking | OUD vs. HC | 12.00* | 2.21 | < 0.001 | 0.87 [0.56, 1.18] | 100 |
OUD vs. AUD | 10.09* | 2.21 | < 0.001 | 0.71 [0.41, 1.01] | 99 | |
AUD vs. HC | 1.91 | 2.21 | 0.77 | 0.14 [-0.16, 0.44] | 14 | |
Harm avoidance | OUD vs. HC | 1.99 | 2.44 | 0.80 | 0.13 [-0.17, 0.43] | 13 |
OUD vs. AUD | -1.54 | 2.44 | 0.90 | -0.10 [-0.40, 0.20] | 9 | |
AUD vs. HC | 3.52 | 2.44 | 0.39 | 0.23 [-0.07, 0.53] | 31 | |
Reward dependence | OUD vs. HC | 1.78 | 1.79 | 0.69 | 0.16 [-0.14, 0.46] | 18 |
OUD vs. AUD | 1.71 | 1.79 | 0.71 | 0.15 [-0.15, 0.45] | 16 | |
AUD vs. HC | 0.06 | 1.79 | 1.00 | 0.01 [-0.29, 0.31] | 5 | |
Persistence | OUD vs. HC | 5.46 | 3.10 | 0.22 | 0.29 [-0.01, 0.59] | 45 |
OUD vs. AUD | 2.96 | 3.10 | 0.71 | 0.15 [-0.15, 0.45] | 15 | |
AUD vs. HC | 2.50 | 3.10 | 0.81 | 0.13 [-0.17, 0.43] | 12 | |
Self-directedness | OUD vs. HC | -25.01* | 3.03 | < 0.001 | -1.37 [-1.69, -1.05] | 100 |
OUD vs. AUD | -20.54* | 3.03 | < 0.001 | -1.03 [-1.35, -0.71] | 100 | |
AUD vs. HC | -4.48 | 3.03 | 0.37 | -0.23 [-0.55, 0.09] | 31 | |
Cooperativeness | OUD vs. HC | -6.91* | 2.30 | 0.009 | -0.46 [-0.77, -0.15] | 83 |
OUD vs. AUD | -9.09* | 2.30 | < 0.001 | -0.61 [-0.92, -0.30] | 97 | |
AUD vs. HC | 2.18 | 2.30 | 0.72 | 0.16 [-0.15, 0.46] | 17 | |
Self-transcendence | OUD vs. HC | 2.36 | < 0.001 | 1.00 [0.68, 1.32] | 100 | |
OUD vs. AUD | 2.36 | < 0.001 | 0.94 [0.62, 1.26] | 99 | ||
AUD vs. HC | 2.36 | 0.77 | 0.14 [-0.16, 0.44] | 14 |