75, p = .02) and sample type (QM = , p < .001). Specifically, significant negative associations between social anxiety and social cognition were found among studies using between groups (r = ?.26, p < .001), rather than correlational (r = ?.07, p = .06), designs and when clinical and nonclinical groups were compared (r = ?.31, p < .001; of which 40% of effect sizes were from studies in which ASD was the clinical group, and 60% from those with SoAD as the clinical group), but not when samples included clinical only (r = ?.02, p = .86) or community only samples (r = ?.05, p = .13).
The type of measure used to measure social anxiety did not account for a significant amount of variance among effect sizes (QM = 2.46, p = .48). However, the type of measure used to assess social cognition (QM = 9.72, p = .02), as well as the informant of both the social cognition (QM = , p < .01) and social anxiety measures, did (QM = , p = .02). Specifically, a significant negative association between social anxiety and social cognition was found within studies that used a clinical assessment as a measure of social cognition (r = ?.28, p < .001; clinician reported, r = ?.34, p < .001) and within those that used self- or parent-reported social anxiety measures (r = ?.18, p < .01; r = ?.16, p = .01). Overall significant effects were not found among studies that used experimental tasks (r = ?.06, p = .09) or those using self-report, r = ?.05, p = .08; or parent-report, r = ?.20, p = .11 to assess social cognition. Neither were significant effects found for those using clinician or teacher report to assess social anxiety (r = ?.09, p = .29; r = ?.13, p = .12). The type of face used in emotion recognition tasks did not significantly moderate the relationship between social anxiety and social cognition (QM = 1.99, p = .37), but the valence of the face did (QM = , p = .01). However, within each valence, no significant association was found between social anxiety and social cognition for any of the facial expression valences (see Table 2).
Group features
Variation in effect sizes was significantly accounted for by the age group of the sample (QM = , p = .02), but not by sex (QM = 0.21, p = .65). Specifically, a significant negative association was found between social anxiety and social cognition among studies that included pre-adolescent (r = ?.21, p < .001) and combined pre-adolescent and adolescent samples (r = ?.25, p < .001). However, a significant positive association was found based on effect sizes from the one study that included an adolescent only sample (r = .10, p < .01). Overall significant effects were not found for studies including only young children (r = .03, p = .63), those including younger and older children (r = ?.09, p = .23), or those including participants from across the full child and adolescent age range (i.e. 0–18 years old; r = ?.33, p = .06).
Risk of bias
Visual examination of the use patch for the Profile 3 indicates you’ll asymmetry, however, rating relationship testing advised the utilize spot https://datingranking.net/sugar-momma/ wasn’t rather asymmetrical (z = ?0.11, p = .91). Furthermore, slender and fill susceptibility analyses suggested one to no degree was expected to meet up with balance contributed to zero switch to all round impact dimensions imagine. This indicates you to definitely publication bias was not gonna has significantly influenced the entire meta-investigation show.
