Table 2.

Indicators of model fit in the Latent Class Growth Analysis

Number of latent classes	BIC	Adj. LRT	Entropy
1	8612.22	–	–
2	7975.46	636.97, p < .001	.87
3	7812.46	181.20, p = .06	.84
4	7708.47	124.43, p = .07	.78
5	7617.60	111.81, p < .05	.80
6	7604.87	36.63, p = .84	.75

Note. BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; lower values suggest better model fit; Adj LRT = Lo Mendell– Rubin adjusted Likelihood Ratio Test; the emergence of a non-significant LMR suggests that the preceding model with one fewer class may be preferred. The 3-class model was chosen as the final version of the trajectory model, and the corresponding classes were utilized in all subsequent analyses. Note that a 3-class model was preferred over the 4-class model because of its higher entropy value, indicating better separation of the results classes (but see Figure S3 for detailed results of the 4-class model). The 3-class model was also preferred over the 5-class model, even though there was a significant Adj. LRT test moving from 4 to 5 classes because the 3-class model had higher entropy than the 5-class model and one of the class sizes in the 5-class model was very small (n = 16). Moreover, the 3-class model was more consistent with prior theoretical and empirical conceptualizations of BMI trajectories across development (Brault et al., 2015; Nonnemaker et al., 2009; Wen et al., 2012).