Table 3.
Model Fit Comparisons for Model 1: Structural Equation Modeling Analyses Testing the Cross-Sectional Associations among Affect and Internalizing/Externalizing Symptomatology for High vs. Low Cognitive Control Groups
| Model Label | χ2 | df | p(exact) | CFI | RMSEA | p(close) | Comparison | Δχ2 | Δdf | p(d) | ΔCFI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High vs. low groups by MSIT behavioral scores | |||||||||||
| 1a. Configural invariance model | 0 | 0 | - | 1.00 | - | - | |||||
| 1b. Equal PA effect on internalizing symptomatology | .01 | 1 | .95 | 1.00 | .00 | .95 | a vs. b | .01 | 1 | .94 | .00 |
| 1c. Equal PA effect on externalizing symptomatology | .65 | 2 | .72 | 1.00 | .00 | .79 | b vs. c | .64 | 1 | .42 | .00 |
| 1d. Equal NA effect on internalizing symptomatology | 1.87 | 3 | .60 | 1.00 | .00 | .72 | c vs. d | 1.22 | 1 | .27 | .00 |
| 1e. Equal NA effect on externalizing symptomatology | 2.52 | 4 | .64 | 1.00 | .00 | .77 | d vs. e | .65 | 1 | .42 | .00 |
| High vs. low groups by MSIT neural scores | |||||||||||
| 1a. Configural invariance model | 0 | 0 | - | 1.00 | - | - | |||||
| 1b. Equal PA effect on internalizing symptomatology | .74 | 1 | .39 | 1.00 | .00 | .47 | a vs. b | .74 | 1 | .39 | .00 |
| 1c. Equal PA effect on externalizing symptomatology | .77 | 2 | .68 | 1.00 | .00 | .76 | b vs. c | .03 | 1 | .86 | .00 |
| 1d. Equal NA effect on internalizing symptomatology | 1.42 | 3 | .70 | 1.00 | .00 | .80 | c vs. d | .65 | 1 | .42 | .00 |
| 1e. Equal NA effect on externalizing symptomatology | 1.43 | 4 | .84 | 1.00 | .00 | .91 | d vs. e | .01 | 1 | .91 | .00 |
Note. PA = Positive Affect; NA = Negative Affect; p(exact) = probability of an exact fit to the data; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; p(close) = probability of a close fit to the data; Δχ2 = difference in likelihood ratio tests; Δdf = difference in df; p(d) = probability of the difference tests; ΔCFI = difference in CFI. Best-fitting model is in bold face.