co-occurring neuro-developmental, mental health problems and clinical service use as well as quality of life, functioning within different social domains, employment and educational status. Seventh, where the above analysis revealed significant differences between DSE+ and DSE- groups we ran a series of multiple logistic regression analyses with other deprivation-specific problems (DSP; ADHD, ASD), CU traits and IQ entered as covariates to assess the extent to which poor outcomes were specific to DSE. Results The five parent reported adult DSE items were significantly inter-correlated (Spearman’s rs =.39 to .83) creating a single scale with high internal consistency (= .82). Figure 1 presents the proportion of positive DSE item endorsements for young adults within the UK, Rom<6 and Rom>6 groups. Adult DSE behaviours were strongly related to levels of prior deprivation. There were equally low rates of in the UK and Rom<6 groups (2 (1) = 0.07; p =.79), but they were significantly greater in the Rom>6 group compared to the Rom<6 group (2 (1) = 11.8; p = .001). Individuals in the Rom>6 group were 7 and 6 times more likely to meet our thresholds than those in either the UK (2 (1) = 11.8; p = .001) or the Rom<6 group, respectively (2 (1) = 12.1; p = .001). Furthermore, there was significant persistence of DSE behaviours, with 64% of those in the Rom>6 group meeting criteria for DSE at 15 also meeting criteria in young adulthood (McNemar; p = .79). Given the similarity in terms of low parent-derived DSE levels in the UK and Rom<6 groups we then tested whether these groups differed in terms of self-rated and observed DSE behaviours: There were no significant differences (p = .054 and p = .34, respectively). The UK and Rom<6 groups were therefore combined for subsequent analyses into a low deprivation (LoDep) group. This group was then compared with the Rom>6 month group
co-occurring neuro-developmental, mental health problems and clinical service use as well as quality of life, functioning within different social domains, employment and educational status. Seventh, where the above analysis revealed significant differences between DSE+ and DSE- groups we ran a series of multiple logistic regression analyses with other deprivation-specific problems (DSP; ADHD, ASD), CU traits and IQ entered as covariates to assess the extent to which poor outcomes were specific to DSE. Results The five parent reported adult DSE items were significantly inter-correlated (Spearman’s rs =.39 to .83) creating a single scale with high internal consistency (= .82). Figure 1 presents the proportion of positive DSE item endorsements for young adults within the UK, Rom<6 and Rom>6 groups. Adult DSE behaviours were strongly related to levels of prior deprivation. There were equally low rates of in the UK and Rom<6 groups (2 (1) = 0.07; p =.79), but they were significantly greater in the Rom>6 group compared to the Rom<6 group (2 (1) = 11.8; p = .001). Individuals in the Rom>6 group were 7 and 6 times more likely to meet our thresholds than those in either the UK (2 (1) = 11.8; p = .001) or the Rom<6 group, respectively (2 (1) = 12.1; p = .001). Furthermore, there was significant persistence of DSE behaviours, with 64% of those in the Rom>6 group meeting criteria for DSE at 15 also meeting criteria in young adulthood (McNemar; p = .79). Given the similarity in terms of low parent-derived DSE levels in the UK and Rom<6 groups we then tested whether these groups differed in terms of self-rated and observed DSE behaviours: There were no significant differences (p = .054 and p = .34, respectively). The UK and Rom<6 groups were therefore combined for subsequent analyses into a low deprivation (LoDep) group. This group was then compared with the Rom>6 month group