1. Errors in Tables and Text
In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in the composition of the sample. Subsequently, one participant had to be excluded from the sample because she did not fulfil the inclusion criteria of the CBCL. The corrected results for N = 49 are presented in Tables 1–3 and in the following data-related text passages:
- Abstract;
- 2.3.2. Psychiatric Diagnoses;
- 3.1. Study Sample;
- 3.2. Descriptive Statistics;
- 3.3. Intercorrelation of Variables Examined, Pooled across Study Groups;
- 5. Strengths and Limitations.
see the specific modifications below.
2. Corrected Tables
Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 are corrected for N = 49. The correct captions, content and legends appear below.
We have inserted the correct Legend A for Table 1 and the Bonferroni-corrected significance level in Legend C for Table 3—each below the tables.
Table 1.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the samples.
Table 1.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the samples.
| Sample Characteristics | n | Clinical Sample M (SD) | n | Control Sample M (SD) | df | χ2 or t | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||||||
| Male | 19 | 14 | 1, 47 | 6.566 | 0.0104 | ||
| Female | 3 | 13 | |||||
| Age (month) | 22 | 70.14 (11.21) | 27 | 63.96 (8.80) | 47 | 2.161 | 0.0359 |
| Socioeconomic status (SES) | 19 | 12.46 (3.16) | 26 | 14.74 (1.63) | 24.99 | 2.878 | 0.0081 |
| CBCL externalizing problems | 22 | 71.36 (7.66) | 27 | 47.37 (6.68) | 47 | 11.716 | <0.0001 |
| CBCL internalizing problems | 22 | 60.50 (7.99) | 27 | 46.89 (10.69) | 47 | 4.946 | <0.0001 |
| WPPSI-III matrix reasoning (gen. IQ) | 22 | 9.91 (3.25) | 27 | 10.85 (2.43) | 38.09 | 1.128 | 0.2664 |
| WPPSI-III language | 22 | 19.59 (3.96) | 27 | 22.52 (2.90) | 47 | 2.985 | 0.0045 |
| WPPSI-III active vocabulary | 22 | 9.36 (2.46) | 27 | 11.52 (1.60) | 47 | 3.694 | 0.0006 |
| WPPSI-III passive vocabulary | 22 | 10.23 (1.90) | 27 | 11.00 (1.82) | 47 | 1.450 | 0.1538 |
Legend A. CBCL: Child Behavior Checklist; gen. IQ: general intelligence quotient; WPPSI: Wechsler Preschool and Primary Intelligence Scale. Means (M) are presented with standard deviations (SD) in parentheses. χ2 for analysis of sex. t for all other analyses. WPPSI-III scale value scores: M = 10, SD = 3; WPPSI-III language scale value score: M = 20, SD = 6.
Table 2.
Intercorrelation of social cognition and behavioral variables, pooled across groups.
Table 2.
Intercorrelation of social cognition and behavioral variables, pooled across groups.
| Social Cognition and Behavioral Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Affect recognition | 1 | 0.048 | 0.008 | 0.103 | 0.121 | −0.094 | −0.203 | −0.333 * |
| 2 Emotion comprehension (affective theory of mind) | 1 | 0.535 ** | 0.013 | 0.070 | 0.119 | −0.181 | −0.010 | |
| 3 Cognitive theory of mind | 1 | 0.103 | 0.301 * | 0.476 ** | −0.441 ** | −0.192 | ||
| 4 Empathy Emotion contagion | 1 | 0.434 ** | 0.365 ** | −0.108 | 0.105 | |||
| 5 Empathy Attention to others’ feelings | 1 | 0.488 ** | −0.316 * | −0.253 | ||||
| 6 Empathy Proscocial action | 1 | −0.490 ** | −0.257 | |||||
| 7 Externalizing problems | 1 | 0.630 ** | ||||||
| 8 Internalizing problems | 1 |
Legend B. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 3.
ANCOVAs with age, sex, and language as covariates.
Table 3.
ANCOVAs with age, sex, and language as covariates.
| Domains of Social Cognition | Clinical Sample (n = 22) M (SD) | Control Sample (n = 27) M (SD) | df | F | p-Value * | Part. η2 | Power 1 − ß |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cognitive theory of mind | 3.41 (1.33) | 4.74 (1.02) | 1, 47 | 16.161 | 0.0002 | 0.269 | 0.97 |
| Affective theory of mind | 5.05 (1.81) | 5.74 (1.77) | 1, 47 | 1.849 | 0.1808 | 0.040 | 0.09 |
| Emotion contagion | 0.37 (0.30) | 0.45 (0.26) | 1, 47 | 0.322 | 0.5733 | 0.007 | 0.05 |
| Attention to others’ feelings | 1.31 (0.47) | 1.62 (0.31) | 1, 47 | 13.622 | 0.0006 | 0.236 | 0.51 |
| Affect recognition | 8.86 (2.80) | 10.56 (2.49) | 1, 47 | 1.335 | 0.2542 | 0.029 | 0.31 |
| Prosocial action | 0.81 (0.50) | 1.21 (0.37) | 1, 47 | 13.309 | 0.0007 | 0.232 | 0.67 |
Legend C. Means (M) are presented with standard deviations (SD) in parentheses. * Bonferroni adjusted significance level: p = 0.05/6 = 0.008. Part. η2 = 0.01 small effect, η2 = 0.06 moderate effect, η2 = 0.14 strong effect.
3. Corrected Text
As a result, the following data-related text passages had to be amended.
- Abstract
Sample description modified for N = 49 follows.
The text “Compared to 28 HCs, 22 preschoolers with EBPs (total sample meanage = 5.5 years +/− 0.8 years, range= 4.2–6.9 years, males 66%) had significantly greater impairments in cognitive ToM (p = 0.0012, η2 = 0.266), attention to others’ feelings (p = 0.0049, η2 = 0.222), and prosocial action (p = 0.0070, η2 = 0.210), each representing strong effect sizes. EBPs were significantly related to cognitive domains, like prosocial action (r = −0.501), cognitive ToM (r = −0.425), and attention to others’ feelings (r = −0.332), but not to affective domains of social cognition” has been corrected to “Compared to 27 HCs, 22 preschoolers with EBPs (total sample meanage = 5.6 years +/− 0.8 years, range= 4.2–6.9 years, males 67%) had significantly greater impairments in cognitive ToM (p = 0.0002, η2 = 0.269), attention to others’ feelings (p = 0.0006, η2 = 0.236), and prosocial action (p = 0.0007, η2 = 0.232), each representing strong effect sizes. EBPs were significantly related to cognitive domains, like prosocial action (r = −0.490), cognitive ToM (r = −0.441), and attention to others’ feelings (r = −0.316), but not to affective domains of social cognition”.
- 2.3.2. Psychiatric Diagnoses
The listing of diagnoses was corrected in this section. The correct text appears below.
The text “five children” has been corrected to “four children” (two places).
- 3.1. Study Sample
The modified sample composition for N = 49 follows.
The text “6 children were excluded from the analyses (one clinical subject and five controls)” has been corrected to “7 children were excluded from the analyses (one clinical subject and six controls)”.
The text “28 control subjects” has been corrected to “27 control subjects”.
- 3.2. Descriptive Statistics
The corrected descriptions of the samples for N = 49 are shown below.
In the first paragraph, the text “(t(48) = 10.500, p < 0.001). The same was true for internalizing problem scores (t(48) = 4.338, p < 0.001)” has been corrected to “(t(47) = 11.716, p < 0.0001). The same was true for internalizing problem scores (t(47) = 4.946, p < 0.0001)”.
In the second paragraph, the text “(χ2(1) = 7.260, p = 0.007, φ = 0.381), age (t(48) = 2.338, p = 0.024), SES (t(24.85) = 2.739, p = 0.010), and active vocabulary (t(48) = 3.551, p < 0.001). In receptive vocabulary (t(48) = 1.595, p = 0.117) and general IQ (t(37.69) = 1.228, p = 0.227)” has been corrected to “(χ2(1) = 6.566, p = 0.0104, φ = 0.366), age (t(47) = 2.161, p = 0.0359), SES (t(24.99) = 2.878, p = 0.0081), and active vocabulary (t(47) = 3.694, p < 0.0006). In receptive vocabulary (t(47) = 1.450, p = 0.1538) and general IQ (t(38.09) = 1.128, p = 0.2664)”
- 3.3. Intercorrelation of Variables Examined, Pooled across Study Groups
Modified correlations between EBP and the social-cognitive domains for N = 49 follow.
In the first paragraph, the text “low correlations were found for the cognitive domains, such as cognitive ToM (r = −0.425) and empathy-related attention to others’ feelings (r = −0.332), and moderate correlations were found for prosocial action (r = −0.501)” has been corrected to “moderate correlations were found for the cognitive domains, such as empathy-related attention to others’ feelings (r = −0.316) and cognitive ToM (r = −0.441), as well as for prosocial action (r = −0.490)”
The modified results of the ANCOVAs for N = 49 follow here.
In the second list item, the text “(F(1,49) = 16.34, p = 0.0012, η2 = 0.266)” has been corrected to “(F(1,47) = 16.161, p = 0.0002, η2 = 0.269)”.
In the third list item, the text “(F(1,49) = 12.83, p = 0.0049, η2 = 0.222) and prosocial action (F(1,49) = 12.00, p = 0.0070, η2 = 0.210)” has been corrected to “(F(1,47) = 13.622, p = 0.0006, η2 = 0.236) and prosocial action (F(1,47) = 13.309, p = 0.0007, η2 = 0.232)”.
The modified power of the ANCOVAs for N = 49 follow.
In the third paragraph, the text “As shown in Table 3, with a relatively small sample size, a power [50] well above 0.8 could be achieved for three variables with large effect sizes (prosocial action: 0.95, cognitive ToM: 0.99, attention to others’ feelings: 0.96). Unfortunately, this cannot be said for the variables with small effects (affect recognition, affective ToM) or without appreciable effects (emotion comprehension), which would have required a larger sample size” has been corrected to “As shown in Table 3, with a relatively small sample size, a power [50] well above 0.8 could be achieved for cognitive theory of mind (power 1 − ß = 0.97). However, the power of two empathy variables fell below the desired level of 1 − ß = 0.8 (attention to others’ feelings: 0.51, prosocial action: 0.67). Nevertheless, these variables still show high significance. For the other variables with small effects (affective theory mind, affect recognition) or no appreciable effects (emotion contagion), a larger sample size would have been required”.
- 5. Strengths and Limitations
The modified effect sizes of the ANCOVAs for N = 49 follow.
In the second paragraph, the text “0.95–0.99” has been corrected to “η2 = 0.232–0.269”.
The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.
Reference
- Watrin-Avino, L.M.; Forbes, F.J.; Buchwald, M.C.; Dittrich, K.; Correll, C.U.; Bermpohl, F.; Bödeker, K. Affect Recognition, Theory of Mind, and Empathy in Preschool Children with Externalizing Behavior Problems—A Group Comparison and Developmental Psychological Consideration. Children 2023, 10, 1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).