. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Oct 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2011 Aug 4;52(10):1099–1108. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02448.x

Table 3.

Model fit statistics for the path models.

Model	(df) χ²	CFI/TLI	RMSEA	Model comparison	(df) Δχ²
1. Autoregressive model	(120) 412.37^***	.951/.915	.045	-	-
2. Dep to CD	(112) 393.48^***	.953/.912	.045	2 vs. 1	(8) 29.22**
3. CD to Dep	(112) 353.19^***	.959/.925	.042	3 vs. 1	(8) 96.53^***
4. Full, cross-lagged model	(104) 338.52^***	.960/.921	.043	4 vs. 2	(8) 91.27^***
				4 vs. 3	(8) 23.96^***

5. Full, cross-lagged model, ODD-ED with CD	(272) 870.72^***	.948/.918	.043	-	-
6. Full, cross-lagged model, ODD-ED with Dep	(272) 923.03^***	.944/.911	.044	-	-
7. Full, cross-lagged model, ODD-ED with CD & Dep	(254) 585.19^***	.971/.951	.033	7 vs. 5	(18) 385.71^***
				7 vs. 6	(18) 473.01^***

8. Full, cross-lagged model, ODD-Def with CD	(272) 880.32^***	.951/.922	.043	-
9. Full, cross-lagged model, ODD-Def with Dep	(272) 1005.47^***	.941/.907	.047	-
10. Full, cross-lagged model, ODD-Def with CD & Dep	(254) 641.93^***	.969/.947	.035	10 vs. 8	(18) 320.06^***
				10 vs. 9	(18) 494.44^***

Note. CD denotes conduct disorder symptom severity, Dep denotes depression severity.

^***

p<.001.