Skip to main content
. 2018 Jan 29;74(6):943–953. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbx183

Table 2.

Latent Change Score Model Comparisons

Description Parameters Deviance CFI BIC RMSEA Likelihood ratio tests
Model Comparison ∆χ2 (df)
No Covariates
M0a No Coupling 19 2,321,187 0.958 2,321,917 0.009
M0b Memory → ∆Depression 22 2,320,070 0.971 2,320,835 0.007 M0a vs M0b 1117 (3)
M0d Bi-directional Coupling 25 2,319,870 0.974 2,320,669 0.007 M0b vs M0d 200 (3)
Covariates = Sex, Education, Re-test, Smoking, BMI
M1a No Coupling 45 3,456,192 0.972 3,457,596 0.006
M1b Memory → ∆Depression 48 3,455,942 0.974 3,457,381 0.006 M1a vs M1b 250 (3)
M1d Bi-directional Coupling 51 3,455,892 0.974 3,457,366 0.006 M1b vs M1d 50 (3)

Note: CFI = Comparative fit index; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation: 90% RMSEA confidence intervals were all within ±.0005 of reported estimates. ∆χ2 (df) = change in deviance per degrees freedom: Higher values indicate the model with more parameters fit the data better. ∆ = “change in”. Models with a uni-directional coupling for Depression → ∆Memory failed to converge and so are not included here.