Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2015 May 4;29(3):447–457. doi: 10.1037/fam0000085

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Structural Equation Model Linking Mothers’ Work Experiences to Adolescents’ Adjustment (N = 246 Families).

Note. 1For figure simplification, only significant (p < .05) standardized path estimates (standard errors) presented; the measurement model, the exogenous (X1 – X3) and endogenous (Y1 – Y3) covariance, within-time covariance, and control variable paths were not included.

2Model fit: χ2(1024) = 1519.15, p < .001. RMSEA = .04(.04, .05); CFI = .92; TLI = .91.

3Significant control variable paths (p < .05): Adolescents’ gender → T2 educational expectations, β = −.27 (.29). Adolescents’ gender → adolescents’ T2 depressive symptoms, β = −.32 (.06). Mothers’ T1 underemployment → T2 risk behavior, β = .21 (.02). Adolescents’ T1 depressive symptoms → adolescents’ T2 depressive symptoms, β = .33 (.33). Adolescents’ T1 risk behavior → T2 risk behavior, β = .47 (.07). Mother-adolescent T1 conflict → mother-adolescent T2 conflict, β = .48 (.10). Mothers’ T1 solicitation → mothers’ T2 solicitation, β = .30 (.07).

4Significant indirect effects (bold arrows): workplace discrimination (WD) → depressive symptoms (DS) → expectations (EE), b1b2 = −.24, 95% CI [−.665, −.023]. WD → solicitation (SO) → DS, b1b2 = .03, 95% CI [.001, .078].