Table 6.

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

		Model 3		Model 4c
		Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE
FIXED EFFECTS
Intercept	β0j
Intercept	γ00	2.459***	0.0840	2.297***	0.0818
Gendera	γ01	0.066	0.0442	0.057	0.0425
Family economic statusb	γ02	−0.032	0.0846	0.044	0.0813
Family intactnessc	γ03	−0.209**	0.0657	−0.063	0.0641
Father-child relational quality	γ04			−0.421***	0.0484
Mother-child relational quality	γ05			−0.335***	.0477
Linear slope	β1j
Intercept	γ10	−0.153**	0.0458	−0.104*	0.0458
Gendera	γ11	0.023	0.0241	0.025	0.0238
Family economic statusb	γ12	−0.037	0.0459	−0.061	0.0456
Family intactnessc	γ13	0.130***	0.0358	0.085*	0.0359
Father-child relational quality	γ14			0.135***	0.0272
Mother-child relational quality	γ15			0.087**	0.0267
RANDOM EFFECTS
Level 1 (within)
Residual	rij	2.3286***	0.0643	2.3286***	0.0643
Level 2 (between)
Intercept	u0j	3.1820***	0.1513	2.7865***	0.1412
Time	u1j	0.3553***	0.0529	0.3207***	0.0521
FIT STATISTICS
Deviance		33645.70		33434.69
AIC		33669.70		33466.69
BIC		33753.34		33578.21
df		12		16

Model 3, conditional growth curve model (only with socio-demographic variables); Model 4c, conditional growth curve model (adding parent-child relational qualities). 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.