Table 3.
Comparisons of Two-Group Structural Equation Models (Low vs. High Income-to-Needs Ratio) for Pubertal Development and Inhibitory Control
| Model | χ2 | df | p(exact) | CFI | RMSEA | p(close) | Comparison | Δχ2 | Δdf | p(d) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Configural invariance | 0 | 0 | 1.00 | |||||||
| 2. Equal-age effects on neural IC | 0.02 | 1 | .90 | 1.00 | 0.00 | .91 | 1 vs. 2 | 0.02 | 1 | .90 |
| 3. Equal-age effects on behavioral IC | 0.05 | 2 | .98 | 1.00 | 0.00 | .98 | 2 vs. 3 | 0.03 | 1 | .86 |
| 4. Equal-puberty effects on neural IC | 5.81 | 3 | .12 | 0.92 | 0.08 | .24 | 3 vs. 4 | 5.76 | 1 | .02 |
| 5. Equal-puberty effects on behavioral IC | 0.07 | 3 | .96 | 1.00 | 0.00 | .98 | 3 vs. 5 | 0.02 | 1 | .88 |
Note: The best-fitting model is in boldface. p(exact) = probability of an exact fit to the data; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; p(close) = probability of a close fit to the data; p(d) = probability of the difference tests; IC = inhibitory control.