Data analysis
Conscientiousness, Rash
SECONDARY, RASH, POSITIVE
Analyzes used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) to assess the effects of time, group and, the intervention over time compared with the control group for the following outcomes (dependent variables): a) UPPS-P: Perseverance, Premeditation, Sensation Seeking, Positive Urgency, Negative Urgency, Emotion-based Rash Action (formed by Negative and Positive Urgency) and, Deficits in Conscientiousness (formed by lack of Perseverance and Premeditation); b) IGT A’B’C’D’ = Total NET-Score [disadvantage beck: (A+B)]—[advantage deck: (C+D)] and each block, IGT K’L’M’N’ = Total NET-Score [disadvantage beck: (M+N)]—[advantage deck: (K+L)] and each block c) Stroop Word-Color Test: Stroop Effect for Time and Number of Errors. All the outcomes’ scores were analyzed with a 2 (time: pre, post-intervention) × 2 (condition: MBRP+TAU, TAU) multivariate GLM. The models considered Gaussian Distribution, and the best distribution was chosen based on the smallest Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) values. All models were adjusted for pre-intervention, age, and gender. All participants data was included in analyzed. A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was made to account for having three outcomes, independently of being primary or secondary, and the 