. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Nov 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Youth Adolesc. 2015 Nov 25;45(11):2278–2291. doi: 10.1007/s10964-015-0391-0

Table 2. Criterion Indices for Model Selection.

	χ² (df)	RMSEA	CFI	SRMR	AIC	BIC
Direct linkage model (parents to youth)
Model A: Parents to youth	16.65 (8)^**	.07	.89	.03	5746.22	5910.78
Model A.1: Multi-group analysis, parameters freely estimated across groups	33.08 (16)^**	.09	.80	.04	5768.46	6097.58
Model A.2: Multi-group analysis, all parameters fixed to be equal across groups	83.56 (47)^***	.08	.57	.06	5749.45	5970.03

Indirect linkage model (parents to siblings to youth)
Model B: Parents to older sibling to younger sibling	17.88 (17)	.02	.98	.03	8178.26	8444.68
Model C: Parents to younger sibling to older sibling	22.96 (17)	.04	.93	.04	8473.14	8739.59

Note. When comparing nested models, namely Models A.1 and A.2, the chi-squared difference was tested using the scaling correction factor for MLR (an Mplus option for maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors; Satorra & Bentler, 2001). When comparing models that were not nested, namely Models B and C, the AIC and BIC were applied.

^**

p < .01.

^***

p < .001.