Table III.
Nested Models for Boys’ and Girls’ Aggression Trajectories with Alcohol Group as a Predictor
| χ2 | df | p | CFI | RMSEA | χ2 Δ | df Δ | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boys | ||||||||
| Model 1 | 65.53 | 17 | .00 | .79 | .16 | |||
| Model 2 | 53.15 | 11 | .00 | .82 | .18 | 12.38 | 6 | ns |
| Model 3 | 10.17 | 7 | .18 | .99 | .06 | 42.98 | 4 | <.001 |
| Model 4 | 9.36 | 7 | .28 | .99 | .05 | 43.79 | 4 | <.001 |
| Girls | ||||||||
| Model 1 | 100.10 | 17 | .00 | .68 | .21 | |||
| Model 2 | 78.79 | 11 | .00 | .74 | .24 | 21.31 | 6 | <.01 |
| Model 3 | 9.05 | 7/ | .25 | .99 | .05 | 69.74 | 4 | <.001 |
| Model 4 | 8.06 | 7 | .33 | 1.0 | .04 | 70.73 | 4 | <.001 |
Note. Model 1: random intercept only; Model 2: random intercept and random linear slope; Model 3: linear model (fixed quadratic slope and random linear slope); Model 4: quadratic model (fixed linear slope and random quadratic slope). Change in Model 4 χ2 is relative to Model 2.