Table 2.
Chi-Square Difference Test Comparisons of Univariate Delay Discounting and Substance Use Growth Trajectories
| Model | χ2 | df | p | SB | RMSEA | CFI | Comparison | T | Δdf | p(d) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delay Discounting | ||||||||||
| a. No Growth | 48.30 | 11 | 0.000 | 1.06 | 0.15 | 0.71 | ||||
| b. Linear Growth | 2.53 | 5 | 0.772 | 1.18 | 0.00 | 1.00 | a vs b | 50.22 | 6 | <0.001 |
| c. Latent Growth | 1.80 | 3 | 0.616 | 1.13 | 0.00 | 1.00 | b vs c | 0.76 | 2 | 0.685 |
| Substance Use | ||||||||||
| a. No Growth | 316.92 | 11 | 0.000 | 1.34 | 0.00 | 0.41 | ||||
| b. Linear Growth | 8.41 | 5 | 0.135 | 1.07 | 0.06 | 0.99 | a vs b | 265.61 | 6 | <0.001 |
| c. Latent Growth | 4.06 | 3 | 0.256 | 0.93 | 0.05 | 1.00 | b vs c | 3.41 | 2 | 0.182 |
SB Satorra-Bentler adjusted chi-square value for model comparison, CFI comparative-fit index, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, T distributed chi-square with difference in df; Δdf difference in df; p(d) probability of the difference tests. Best-fitting models are in bold face