Supplemental Table: Fit Statistics for LCA Models
Parent ReportNonReferred only / -2LL / BIC / bootstrap p
1-Cluster (with age,sex) / -6291.7783 / 12643.3093 / <0.001
2-Cluster (with age,sex) / -5718.9971 / 11579.9069 / 0.008
3-Cluster (with age,sex) / -5663.6026 / 11551.2778 / 0.008
4-Cluster (with age,sex) / -5620.7073 / 11547.647 / 0.058
5-Cluster (with age,sex) / -5595.4858 / 11579.3639 / 0.076
4-Cluster (age only) / -5625.9464 / 11535.718 / 0.072
4-Cluster (sex only) / -5675.0766 / 11633.9783 / 0.338
4-Cluster (age, sad->underactive) / -5618.7109 / 11528.7161 / 0.05
4-Cluster (age, sad->underactive->enjoys little) / -5614.6253 / 11528.0139 / 0.094
Teacher Report
NonReferred only / -2LL / BIC / bootstrap p
1-Cluster (with age,sex) / -3211.4231 / 6482.5988 / <0.001
2-Cluster (with age,sex) / -2624.9118 / 5391.7362 / 0.016
3-Cluster (with age,sex) / -2577.4303 / 5378.9332 / 0.27
4-Cluster (with age,sex) / -2552.2703 / 5410.7731 / 0.254
5-Cluster (with age,sex) / -2538.5486 / 5465.4896 / 0.248
3-Cluster (age only) / -2577.9908 / 5365.1159 / 0.132
3-Cluster (sex only) / -2578.6872 / 5366.5088 / 0
3-Cluster (neither age nor sex) / -2579.1774 / 5352.5509 / 0
3-Cluster (age only, enjoyslittle->shy) / -2572.0876 / 5360.7787 / 0.144
Self Report
NonReferred only / -2LL / BIC / bootstrap p
1-Cluster (with age,sex) / -4958.3599 / 9976.4724 / <0.001
2-Cluster (with age,sex) / -4572.5125 / 9286.9376 / 0.01
3-Cluster (with age,sex) / -4544.6768 / 9313.4261 / 0.034
4-Cluster (with age,sex) / -4521.9859 / 9350.2043 / 0.022
5-Cluster (with age,sex) / -4503.3116 / 9395.0156 / 0.026
3-Cluster (age only) / -4550.2392 / 9309.6127 / 0.022
3-Cluster (sex only) / -4552.4056 / 9313.9455 / 0.034
3-Cluster (age only, won't talk->shy) / -4540.5234 / 9297.6502 / 0.018
Supplemental Table notes on model fitting:
For the parent report, we first fit 1-5 classes with age and sex as covariates. The 4 class solution had the lowest BIC, was 0.05 or greater on bootstrapping and had the fewest significant bivariate residuals. Dropping sex as a covariate did not worsen the BIC, but dropping age did. We then added in a direct effect between sad underactive and the BIC improved while the model remained 0.05 or greater on bootstrapping. Adding another direct effect with enjoys little made little change in the BIC, so a 4-class solution with age only and with a direct effect sad underactive was accepted as the best model (indicated in bold).
For the teacher report, we first fit 1-5 classes with age and sex as covariates. The 3 class solution had the lowest BIC, was 0.05 or greater on bootstrapping and had the fewest significant bivariate residuals. Dropping sex as a covariate did not worsen the BIC. Dropping age as a covariate also improved the BIC, but the models were <0.001 by bootstrapping, so age was retained. Adding in a direct effect between enjoys little shy led to a lower BIC than age only and was still greater than 0.05 by bootstrapping. There were no further significant bivariate residuals, so a 3-class model with age only and with a direct effect between enjoys litte shy was accepted as the best model (indicated in bold).
For the self report, we first fit 1-5 classes with age and sex as covariates. There was no model that was 0.05 or greater on bootstrapping. While the 2-class solution had the lower BIC, the 3-class solution had only one significant bivariate residual. Thus, we decided to choose the 3-class solution as the best model. Dropping sex as a covariate did not worsen the BIC. Dropping age as a covariate made little difference in the BIC, but did make a difference when the one significant bivariate residual, won’t talk shy, was included as a direct effect. With no particularly outstanding model, a 3-class model with age only and with a direct effect between won’t talk shy was accepted as the best model (indicated in bold).