Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Dev Psychopathol. 2019 Oct;31(4):1451–1465. doi: 10.1017/S0954579418001037

Table 3.

Results for males versus females for the developmental cascade model evaluating MDD symptoms in the context of interpersonal relationships (N = 1,127)

Path Males (n = 519) Females (n = 608) ΔSB χ2 (1 df)
Stability paths
1. Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 11 → Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 14 .61*** (.05) .55*** (.06) 0.54
2. Antisocial Peer Aff. 11 → Antisocial Peer Aff. 14 .33*** (.07) .32*** (.05) 0.02
3. MDD 11 → MDD 14 .24** (.07) .02 (.06) 5.61*
4. Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 14 → Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 17 .61*** (.05) .43*** (.05) 6.26*
5. Antisocial Peer Aff. 14 → Antisocial Peer Aff. 17 .65*** (.05) .39*** (.06) 15.17***
6. MDD 14 → MDD 17 .07 (.06) .39*** (.09) 9.83**
7. Antisocial Peer Aff. 17 → Antisocial Peer Aff. 20 1.89*** (.17) 2.08*** (.17) 0.60
8. MDD 17 → MDD 20 .38*** (.11) .25*** (.06) 1.13
9. Antisocial Peer Aff. 20 → Antisocial Peer Aff. 24 .66*** (.04) .42*** (.03) 8.17**
10. MDD 20 → MDD 24 .30*** (.08) .36*** (.06) 0.40
11. Antisocial Peer Aff. 24 → Antisocial Peer Aff. 29 .47*** (.03) .51*** (.04) 1.55
12. RRPROB 24 → RRPROB 29 .30** (.11) .27*** (.08) 0.06
13. MDD 24 → MDD 29 .29*** (.07) .37*** (.05) 0.97
Cross-paths
1. MDD 11 → Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 14 3.73 (2.77) −3.51 (3.17) 3.01
2. Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 11 → MDD 14 .00 (.00) .003** (.001) 0.60
3. MDD 11 → Antisocial Peer Aff. 14 .14 (.24) −.21 (.27) 0.95
4. Antisocial Peer Aff. 11 → MDD 14 .00 (.01) .02 (.01) 0.56
5. Antisocial Peer Aff. 11 → Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 14 .12 (.73) 1.73** (.59) 3.48
6. Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 11 → Antisocial Peer Aff. 14 .01* (.001) .02** (.006) 0.21
7. MDD 14 → Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 17 3.37 (3.85) −1.53 (2.62) 1.24
8. Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 14 → MDD 17 .00 (.00) .00 (.00) 0.11
9. MDD 14 → Antisocial Peer Aff. 17 −.28 (.21) .02 (.17) 1.19
10. Antisocial Peer Aff. 14 → MDD 17 .02 (.01) .02 (.02) 0.01
11. Antisocial Peer Aff. 14 → Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 17 .58 (.54) −.52 (.65) 1.76
12. Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 14 → Antisocial Peer Aff. 17 .01* (.004) .01** (.004) 0.04
13. Parent-Child Rel. Prob. → MDD 20 .00 (.00) .00 (.00) 0.26
14. MDD 17 → Antisocial Peer Aff. 20 −.45 (.76) .06 (.46) 0.35
15. Antisocial Peer Aff. 17 → MDD 20 .00 (.01) .02 (.02) 1.21
16. Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 17 → Antisocial Peer Aff. 20 .03* (.01) .02 (.01) 0.42
17. MDD 20 → Antisocial Peer Aff. 24 .80 (.51) 1.03** (.38) 0.13
18. Antisocial Peer Aff. 20 → MDD 24 .01* (.003) .01 (.004) 0.02
19. MDD 20 → Rom. Rel. Problems 24 2.22 (1.55) 3.61* (1.58) 0.40
20. Antisocial Peer Aff. 20 → Rom. Rel. Problems 24 .29* (.12) .03 (.13) 2.39
21. MDD 24 → Antisocial Peer Aff. 29 .80 (.42) .24 (.28) 1.38
22. Antisocial Peer Aff. 24 → MDD 29 .01* (.002) .00 (.00) 3.21
23. MDD 24 → Rom. Rel. Problems 29 −.76 (1.60) 1.90 (1.01) 1.75
24. Rom. Rel. Problems 24 → MDD 29 .00 (.00) .01* (.003) 1.46
25. Antisocial Peer Aff. 24 → Rom. Rel. Problems 29 .35** (.12) .07 (.11) 3.36
26. Rom. Rel. Problems 24 → Antisocial Peer Aff. 29 .00 (.02) .01 (.01) 0.16
Residual correlations
1. Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 11 ↔ MDD 11 −.01 (.10) .21* (.09) 3.17
2. Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 11 ↔ Antisocial Peer Aff. 11 2.12 (1.11) 1.74*** (.36) 0.20
3. MDD 11 ↔ Antisocial Peer Aff. 11 .01 (.01) .02* (.01) 0.62
4. Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 14 ↔ MDD 14 .05 (.11) .24 (.13) 1.27
5. Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 14 ↔ Antisocial Peer Aff. 14 1.82** (.56) 3.22*** (.62) 3.01
6. MDD 14 ↔ Antisocial Peer Aff. 14 .03* (.01) .03** (.01) 0.01
7. Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 17 ↔ MDD 17 .01 (.11) .24 (.13) 1.82
8. Parent-Child Rel. Prob. 17 ↔ Antisocial Peer Aff. 17 1.44** (.48) 1.03** (.36) 0.47
9. MDD 17 ↔ Antisocial Peer Aff. 17 .01 (.01) .01 (.01) 0.33
10. MDD 20 ↔ Antisocial Peer Aff. 20 .10* (.04) .01 (.04) 2.43
11. MDD 24 ↔ Antisocial Peer Aff. 24 .05 (.03) .08* (.04) 0.40
12. MDD 24 ↔ Rom. Rel. Problems 24 .23 (.12) .13 (.14) 0.31
13. Antisocial Peer Aff. 24 ↔ Rom. Rel. Problems 24 4.34*** (1.05) 2.02 (1.05) 2.69
14. MDD 29 ↔ Antisocial Peer Aff. 29 −.01 (.03) .05* (.02) 3.25
15. MDD 29 ↔ Rom. Rel. Problems 29 .30* (.12) .34** (.11) 0.07
16. Antisocial Peer Aff. 29 ↔ Rom. Rel. Problems 24 1.94* (.80) 1.26* (.53) 0.54

Note: Parent-Child Rel. Prob, parent-child relationship problems. Antisocial Peer Aff., antisocial peer affiliation. Rom. Rel. Problems, romantic relationship problems. MDD, log-transformed major depressive disorder symptom count. Shown are unstandardized coefficients (standard errors) for associated stability and cross-paths. Model fit statistics for this model that allowed all paths to vary by gender were as follows: χ2 (162) = 386.85, p < .001; RMSEA = .05, p = .53; CFI = .91; TLI = .85; SRMR=.07 (standardized coefficients are presented in Figure 2). Significant differences in unstandardized coefficients forcorresponding paths by gender were tested by constraining each path to be equivalent and using the Satorra-Bentler chi-square difference test (ΔSB χ2 on 1 df) to test for significant decrement in fit between the free and constrained models. Results showed no statistically significant differences in any of the cross-paths by gender at p < .05. The only significant differences found concerned stability paths, and none of these differences reached statistical significance when correcting the a for multiple testing by gender (0.05/55 paths tested [13 stability tests + 26 cross-paths + 16 residual correlations]) would require p < .0009, except for the path Antisocial Peer Aff. 14→ Antisocial Peer Aff. 17 (see row 5), which was significantly more stable for males than for females. Statistical significance is denoted by

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001.

Coefficients that are not significantly different zero are also indicated in gray.