. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Mar 1.

Published in final edited form as: Child Dev. 2016 Oct 6;88(2):640–657. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12617

Table 3.

Unstandardized Path Coefficients Conditional Models Testing Relations between Latent Peer Victimization and Stress Response Trajectories

	Peer Victimization Intercept → Stress Response Intercept		Peer Victimization Intercept → Stress Response Linear Slope		Peer Victimization Intercept → Stress Response Quadratic Slope		Peer Victimization Slope → Stress Response Linear Slope		Peer Victimization Slope → Stress Response Quadratic Slope
Stress Response	Boys	Girls	Boys	Girls	Boys	Girls	Boys	Girls	Boys	Girls
Effortful engagement	−.41^***	−.36^***	−.13^**	−.17^***	^---	^---	−.70^**	−1.53^***	^---	^---
Effortful disengagement	−.15^***	−.15^***	.08^***	.08^***	^---	^---	−.03	−.03	^---	^---
Involuntary engagement	.29^***	.29^***	.04^*	.04^*	^---	^---	.64^***	.64^***	^---	^---
Involuntary disengagement	.25^***	.25^***	.05^**	.05^**	−.01^*	^---	.72^***	.72^***	−.14^*	^---

Note. Unstandardized paths were constrained to be equal for boys and girls unless a significant gender difference was detected, or, as was in the case of involuntary engagement, only for boys was there significant variance in the latent quadratic slope.

p < .05.

^**

p < .01.

^***

p < .001