Table 4.

Model Fit Comparisons for Model 2: Structural Equation Modeling Analyses Testing the Longitudinal Associations among Affect and Change in 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	1.79	2	.41	1.00	.00	.52
1b. Equal PA effect on internalizing symptomatology	2.86	3	.41	1.00	.00	.55	a vs. b	1.07	1	.30	.00
1c. Equal PA effect on externalizing symptomatology	6.46	4	.17	.87	.07	.31	b vs. c	3.59	1	.06	.13
1d. Equal NA effect on internalizing symptomatology	6.68	4	.15	.86	.07	.29	b vs. d	3.81	1	.05	.14
1e. Equal NA effect on externalizing symptomatology	3.22	4	.52	1.00	.00	.67	b vs. e	.35	1	.55	.00
High vs. low groups by MSIT neural scores
1a. Configural invariance model	.83	2	.66	1.00	.00	.74
1b. Equal PA effect on internalizing symptomatology	2.96	3	.40	1.00	.00	.54	a vs. b	2.13	1	.14	.00
1c. Equal PA effect on externalizing symptomatology	10.54	4	.03	.65	.11	.09	b vs. c	7.58	1	.01	.35
1d. Equal NA effect on internalizing symptomatology	3.05	4	.55	1.00	.00	.70	b vs. d	.08	1	.77	.00
1e. Equal NA effect on externalizing symptomatology	3.08	5	.69	1.00	.00	.82	d vs. e	.04	1	.85	.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.