79; p < 0.001), the BRI score (Rho = 0.75; p = 0.001) and the MI score (Rho = 0.65; p = 0.006). The correlation between the TAND Executive subdomain and BRIEF BRI domain is shown in figure 4. No external tools of academic skills were included in this study. However, we predicted that individuals with a lower Wessex score, suggesting intellectual disability, would have higher rates
of academic difficulties reported in their TAND Checklists. Eighty PD-1/PD-L1 tumor percent (16/20) of participants were of school-going age or above and could be examined for scholastic difficulties. The TAND Checklist identified 7 individuals with academic difficulties of whom 6 were judged to have ID as based on the Wessex Scale. Administration of the TAND Checklist took ∼10 minutes and the duration of stage 2 data collection were between 45 minutes to 1.5 hours. The TSC literature summarised in the introduction provided rates of difficulties across groups of individuals, for instance, to report that 40% of children with TSC had anxiety symptoms or that 57% had temper tantrums. 15 However, there were, to our knowledge, no data to indicate what proportion of individuals with TSC had one or more of these TAND behavioral challenges as a marker of lifetime rates of TAND difficulties. We therefore calculated the number of participants (out of the total n=62) who had a lifetime report of 1 or more TAND behavioral difficulties
endorsed. 100% of participants had 1 or more lifetime reported TAND Epacadostat behavioral difficulties, 97% had 2 or more difficulties, 93% had 4 or more difficulties, and 89% had 6 or more lifetime behavioral difficulties. Results from this study showed high
scores across the main areas of face and content validity examined. Experts from 28 countries participated in stage 1 suggesting that the TAND Checklist has broad and global face and content validity. The many helpful suggestions from experts were incorporated into the revised version of the TAND Checklist, such as addition of a developmental section at the start of the TAND Checklist to give an overview of the functional Casein kinase 1 ability level of the participant. Results from item 4 on the Expert Feedback Form (‘clinical usage’) indicated hesitation as to whether clinical teams would use the TAND Checklist in practice. It is possible that there may have been concern regarding the time requirements to complete the tool in the context of a busy clinic schedule, or that experts did not feel that they would have the necessary competence to complete the TAND Checklist with families. It was therefore interesting to note a strong theme from expert parents about the need for parents/families to take ownership and drive usage of the TAND Checklist. No statistical differences were noted between responses of expert professionals and expert parents in stage 1.