. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 May 27.

Published in final edited form as: Dev Psychopathol. 2023 Feb 16;36(2):844–856. doi: 10.1017/S0954579423000123

Table 3. Comparison of Constrained and Unconstrained Models in Sample 1 and 2.

Analysis	Sample	RMSEA		CFI		SRMR		Chi square(df) of model fit		Log-likelihood test
Analysis	Sample	Constrained model	Unconstrained model	Constrained model	Unconstrained model	Constrained model	Unconstrained model	Constrained model	Unconstrained model	χ²(df)	p
General RS	S1	.012	<.001	.999	>.999	.067	.040	17.56(17) p =.417	7.24(9) p =.612	10.57(8)	.227
General RS	S2	<.001	<.001	>.999	>.999	.018	.007	3.97(5) p =.554	1.42(1) p =.233	3.29(4)	.510
Anxious RS	S1	.051	<.001	.978	>.999	.077	.044	27.33(17) p =.053	8.86(9) p =.451	20.79(8)	.008
Anxious RS	S2	.045	.050	.992	.998	.021	.014	12.04(5) p =.034	2.81(1) p =.094	9.22(4)	.056
Angry RS	S1	<.001	<.001	>.999	>.999	.059	.034	15.62(17) p =.551	6.74(9) p =.664	9.00(8)	.342
Angry RS	S2	<.001	<.001	>.999	>.999	.014	.001	1.42(5) p =.923	0.02(1) p =.877	1.37(4)	.850
Peer RS	S2	<.001	<.001	>.999	>.999	.020	.004	4.47(5) p =.484	0.19(1) p =.666	4.32(4)	.365
Teacher RS	S2	<.001	.007	>.999	>.999	.018	.009	4.64(5) p =.461	1.03(1) p =.309	3.61(4)	.462

Note. Significant log-likelihood tests indicate preference of the unconstrained model (p <.05). RS = Rejection sensitivity, S1 = Sample 1, S2 = Sample 2.