Multi-group comparisons of grade for relationships among
the variables
Based on the full model, M1 created unconstrained model M4
(morphological equivalence) for grade, and then created fully
constrained model M5 (loadings equivalence) from M4 (see Table 5),
revealing that these two models exhibited acceptable fit indices. Unlike
the gender group, a significant difference in χ² was observed between M4
and M5 (△χ = 23.097-13.774), with a difference in df = 8
and p = 0.013<0.05. This indicated that the correlation between the
variables varied across grade levels, and the models significantly
differed due to these grade distinctions.
Further analysis of specific paths through which differences are
manifested with grade as the moderating variable, distinct patterns
emerged across grade levels. Specifically, among K1 children, five path
coefficients were significant, while three were not (see Figure 4).
Notably, closeness TCR did not significantly predict SR and SE, and SE
did not predict mathematics in this group. For K2 children, six path
coefficients were significant, while two were not (see Figure 5). It was
observed that closeness TCR had no significant predictive effect on SR,
and SR on vocabulary was not significant. In the case of K3 children,
four path coefficients were significant, while four were not (see Figure
6). Conflict TCR did not exhibit a significant predictive effect on SR
and SE, while closeness TCR did not significantly predict SR, and SE on
vocabulary was not significant.
Comparing the path coefficients across the three grades, it was evident
that only the prediction of SR on mathematics remained significant
across all grades. This effect was most pronounced for K1 (0.364
> 0.248, 0.255). However, significant grade differences
were observed in the remaining seven paths. Specifically, conflict TCR
significantly predicted SE and SR for K1 and K2. Closeness TCR had a
significant predictive effect on SE for K2 and SR for K3 but was not
significant for SE or SR in K1. SE exhibited a predictive effect on
vocabulary for K1 and K2 and on mathematics for K2 and K3.
Interestingly, SR did not significantly predict vocabulary for K2 but
exhibited a strong predictive effect of up to 0.454 for K1.
<Insert Figure 4 HERE>
<Insert Figure 5 HERE>
<Insert Figure 6 HERE>