In the original article, Figure 7 contained an error. Unfortunately, components of the Index of Relative Rurality (IRR) were incorrectly scaled towards urbanicity, rather than towards rurality. The correction does not affect the authors’ substantive conclusion that the IRR results show “appreciable variability in our sample”. However, the corrected version of Figure 7 is shown below. In addition, on page 8 of the original aritcle, “IRR County range = 0.05, 0.75” should be “IRR County range = 0.05, 0.80”. The authors would like to apologise for the error.

Fig. 7.

IRR in the CATSLife sample from the first 3 years of data collection (N = 947).