. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Sep 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2018 Dec 13;117(3):621–634. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000229

Table 2.

Longitudinal Measurement Invariance Models and Latent Growth Curve Models of Self-Control

Model	χ²	df	CFI	RMSEA [90% CI]	∆χ²	∆df	∆Models
M1: Configural invariance	928.40^*	650	.986	.017 [.014, .019]	—	—	—
M2: Strong invariance	1031.06^*	674	.982	.019 [.016, .021]	117.21^*	24	2–1
M3: Strict invariance	1066.07^*	706	.982	.018 [.016, .020]	63.40^*	32	3–2
M4: Intercept only	1444.99^*	719	.964	.026 [.024, .028]	—	—	—
M5: Linear growth	1120.06^*	716	.980	.019 [.017, .021]	75.71^*	3	4–5
M6: Nonlinear growth^a	1091.39^*	713	.981	.019 [.016, .020]	15.48^*	3	5–6

Note. M1 to M3 = longitudinal measurement invariance models; M4 to M6 = latent growth models;

the nonlinear model was specified according to Meredith and Tisak (1990); χ²: mean- and variance-adjusted chi-square test statistics (WLSMV estimator); CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; 90% CI = 90% confidence intervals for RMSEA; ∆χ² = adjusted chi-square difference test using the Mplus DIFFTEST; AModels = comparison of models.

p < .01.