In the above article (Tucker-Drob et al. (2017) the authors mistakenly reported 90% in place of 95% confidence intervals. The article has been corrected below to report 95% confidence intervals… Click to show full abstract
In the above article (Tucker-Drob et al. (2017) the authors mistakenly reported 90% in place of 95% confidence intervals. The article has been corrected below to report 95% confidence intervals in Table 1, Table 3, and Table S1 of the online supplement. In addition, Figure 1 of the article has been updated so that the gray bands reflect 95% confidence intervals. All parameter estimates and p values originally reported are correct. All inferences and conclusions are therefore unchanged.
               
Click one of the above tabs to view related content.