Table 5.

Results from the models with baseline and descending limb data together (n=222).

Models	χ2	df	RMSEA (95% CI)	CFI	TLI	Δχ2	p
Multi-group (alcohol/no-alcohol) Longitudinal Factor Models
C1: Strict invariance	49.801*	36	.059 (0–.096)	.960	.966	-	-
C2: Desc. post-drink factor mean	44.840	35	.050 (0–.090)	.971	.975	5.0586	<.025
C3: Desc. post-drink factor var.	45.097	34	.054 (0–.093)	.968	.971	3.8219	>.1
C4: Pre-to-post path coefficient	39.656	33	.043 (0–.085)	.981	.982	8.1597	<.05
Multi-group (alcohol/no-alcohol) MIMIC models (with Practice variable)
D1: Strict invariance	62.951*	47	.055 (0–.088)	.959	.963	-	-
D2: Limb path coefficient	55.580	46	.043 (0–.080)	.975	.978	7.001	<.01
D3: Desc. post-drink factor mean & var.	53.836	44	.045 (0–.082)	.975	.976	8.233	<.05
D4: Pre-on-post path coefficient	46.635	43	.028 (0–.071)	.991	.991	14.692	<.01

Note. Names of parameters in the Models column were freely estimated across groups in each successive model are listed. Note that free parameters in each successive model also include the parameters that are freed in previous steps; E.g., in Model C4, pre-to-post path coefficient means that, in addition to the parameters freed earlier (i.e. post-drink factor mean and variance in model C2 and C3), the path coefficient from pre- to post-drink latent variable was also estimated freely across groups. Likelihood ratio tests (Δχ2) were reported in comparison to the strict invariance models. Desc. = descending limb; var. = variance; RMSEA = root mean square of approximation; CI = confidence interval; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index.

^*p<.05,