Table 5.

Results of IGC models with level-2 predictors for adolescent Internet addiction (Waves 1–3, Linear).

		Model 3		Model 4b
		Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE
FIXED EFFECTS
Intercept	β0j
Intercept	γ00	2.459***	0.0840	2.449***	0.0832
Gendera	γ01	0.066	0.0442	0.031	0.0441
Family economic statusb	γ02	−0.032	0.0846	−0.034	0.0834
Family intactnessc	γ03	−0.209**	0.0657	−0.193**	0.0651
Paternal psychological control	γ04			0.117*	0.0498
Maternal psychological control	γ05			0.279***	0.0495
Linear slope	β1j
Intercept	γ10	−0.153**	0.0458	−0.147**	0.0457
Gendera	γ11	0.023	0.0241	0.029	0.0242
Family economic statusb	γ12	−0.037	0.0459	−0.039	0.0458
Family intactnessc	γ13	0.130***	0.0358	0.124*	0.0358
Paternal psychological control	γ14			0.010	0.0274
Maternal psychological control	γ15			−0.095**	0.0272
RANDOM EFFECTS
Level 1 (within)
Residual	rij	2.3286***	0.0643	2.3286***	0.0643
Level 2 (between)
Intercept	u0j	3.1820***	0.1513	3.0610***	0.1482
Time	u1j	0.3553***	0.0529	0.3471***	0.0527
FIT STATISTICS
Deviance		33645.70		33578.79
AIC		33669.70		33610.79
BIC		33753.34		33722.31
df		12		16

Model 3, conditional growth curve model (only with socio-demographic variables); Model 4b, conditional growth curve model (adding parental psychological control). AIC, Akaike Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion.

^aFemale = −1, Male = 1;

^bHaving economic disadvantage = −1, Not having economic disadvantage = 1.

^cNon-intact = −1, Intact = 1.

^*p < 0.05.

^**p < 0.01.

^***p < 0.001.