Multi-group comparisons of gender for relationships among
the variables
Multi-group analysis was employed to assess the model’s fit across
different groups. A suitable model fit would suggest that sample
attribute variables had moderating effects, leading to subsequent group
difference analysis. To explore potential variable variations based on
demographic characteristics, nested models were constructed using the
grade and gender of children as group variables, utilizing M-plus. In
line with the full model, M1, equivalent models were created using
multiple group comparisons within the SEM framework. Firstly, an
unconstrained M2 (morphological equivalence) model was developed for
gender. Subsequently, fully constrained models, M3 (loadings
equivalence), were derived from M2. As presented in Table 5, the results
revealed that two models (M2 and M3) exhibited acceptable fit indices.
However, upon comparing the models, it was evident that there was no
significant difference in χ² between M2 and M3. This suggested that the
correlation between the variables remained consistent across genders.
<Insert Table 5 HERE>
Given the constancy of inter-variable interactions across genders,
further analysis was conducted to examine the patterns of these paths
across genders. Notably, boys’ closeness TCR did not significantly
predict SR (see Figure 2). Similarly, girls’ conflict TCR did not
exhibit significant effects on SE (see Figure 3). In the remaining
pathways, no significant gender differences were observed. In
particular, SR emerged as the strongest predictor, with predictions of
mathematics and vocabulary reaching high values of 0.496 and 0.515 for
boys, and 0.591 and 0.472 for girls, respectively. Additionally,
closeness TCR demonstrated positive predictive effects on SE for both
boys and girls, with slightly stronger predictive values for girls than
for boys (0.314 > 0.228). The predictions of SE for
mathematics and vocabulary did not exhibit gender difference. However,
the predictive effect on vocabulary was somewhat greater for boys than
for girls (0.306 > 0.277).
<Insert Figure 2 HERE>
<Insert Figure 3 HERE>