Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Child Dev. 2017 Sep 22;90(3):894–910. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12969

Table 3.

MLM Growth Models for Risky Behavior showing Unconditional Growth (Model 1) and Main Effects Models (Models 2 and 3).

Model 1 Model 1b Model 2 Model 3
Predictors β SE β SE β SE β SE
Fixed Effects
Intercept 1.37** 0.02 1.31** .03 1.32** 0.03 1.31** 0.04
Time 0.02** 0.00 0.08** 0.01 0.07** 0.01 0.07** 0.01
Time 2 -- -- −0.01** 0.00 −0.01** 0.00 −0.01** 0.00
Gender -- -- -- -- −0.12** 0.03 −0.11** 0.04
Nativity -- -- -- -- 0.09* 0.03 0.10* 0.04
Discrim -- -- -- -- 0.13** 0.04 0.12* 0.05
M –A Confl -- -- -- -- 0.15** 0.03 -- --
F-A Confl -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.11** 0.01
Discrim X Time -- -- -- -- −0.01 0.01 −0.01 0.01
M-A Confl X Time -- -- -- -- −0.01* 0.01 -- --
F-A Confl X Time −0.01 0.01
Random Effects
L1 Residual Variance 0.05** 0.00 0.05** 0.00 0.05** 0.00 0.05** 0.00
L2 Intercept Variance 0.10** 0.02 0.10** 0.02 0.07** 0.01 0.08** 0.01
L2 Slope Variance 0.00** 0.00 0.00** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00** 0.00
Pseudo R2
L1 Residual Variance 0.03 0.00 0.00
L1 Slope Variance 0.07 0.04 0.01

Note: Discrim. = Discrimination; M –A Confl. = Mother-Adolescent Conflict; F-A Confl. = Father-Adolescent Conflict;

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01; Gender coded 0 = male, 1 = female; Nativity coded 0 = US-born, 1 = Mexico-born. Model 4 and Model 5 (Discrimination, Mother conflict, Father Conflict models with Gender and Intimacy Interactions) are not shown due to non-significant interactions. Pseudo R2 for Models 1b - 3 were estimated by comparing the residual variance in Model 2 to the unconditional Model (Unconditional Model – Model X / Unconditional Model).