DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ADOLESCENT AND ADULT MOTHERS ...

variance for the intercept factor was constrained to be equal in both groups. According to
the likelihood ratio test, this model was not significantly different from the unrestricted
model, χ 2 (1, N = 553) = 2.1, p > .05, indicating that it was acceptable to have the
intercept variance be the same for teens and adults. Similarly, a model was tested with the
slope variance set to be the same in both groups and this model was not significantly
different from the unrestricted model, indicating that it was reasonable to let both groups
have the same variance for the slope factor. In sum, the multi-group comparisons of the
unconditional model indicated that teens and adults had different initial levels of lack of
hostility and different rates of change, but that they had equivalent variability in their
initial levels and rates of change.
Conditional growth curve model of hostility. Next, a family of nested models was
conducted for the conditional growth model for lack of hostility, with cognitive readiness
and paternal support operating as predictors of intercept and slope, which in turn
predicted expressive communication and auditory comprehension. Education and income
were also included as covariates on the intercept and slope. The fit indices and chi square
differences for each comparative model are presented in Table 5. For each model, the
intercept and slope means were estimated separately for teens and adults, but the intercept
and slope variances were restricted to be equal across groups. No error variances were
allowed to correlate.
The first step in examining group differences in the conditional growth model of
lack of hostility was to test an unrestricted model which allowed all path coefficients to
be estimated separately for teens and adults. This model (H1) displayed good fit
(RMSEA = .02; CFI = .98). Next, a model was tested which constrained the path from
50