Appendix. Supplemental Table 1. Fit Indices for Latent Class Growth Analysis for Food Insecurity Trajectories, Understanding Coronavirus in America Tracking Survey, April 2020-March 2021^a .

No. of Classes	AIC	BIC	AIC-corrected for sample size	Sample size-adjusted BIC	Entropy	Vuong–Lo–Mendell–Rubin likelihood test, P value	Lo–Mendell–Rubin likelihood test, P value
2	38,103	38,131	38,103	38,116	0.89	<.001	<.001
3	37,046	37,092	37,046	37,067	0.81	<.001	<.001
4	36,344	36,407	36,344	36,372	0.76	<.001	<.001
5	35,776	35,856	35,812	35,812	0.76	<.001	<.001
6	35,638	35,736	35,638	35,682	0.76	.003	.004
7	35,509	35,624	35,510	35,561	0.74	.002	.002
8	35,452	35,584	35,452	35,511	0.73	<.001	<.001
9	35,419	35,568	35,419	35,485	0.68	.48	.48
10	35,360	35,526	35,361	35,434	0.68	.32	.33

Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion.

^a Analysis excluded participants whose responses did not change during the study period and were grouped a priori. Study n = 2,627. We pre-fixed participants that remained food secure or food insecure into groups before employing latent class growth analysis (LCGA). LCGA was conducted on the remaining subsample with variation in their endorsement of food insecurity over time. Therefore, the 10 classes in total include the 2 pre-fixed groups, and the results of the LCGA showed that 8 classes provided the optimal solution.