Interpretation
The LGCM fit was generally strong (CFI = 0.949, TLI = 0.938, SRMR = 0.045), with only the RMSEA (0.092) hinting at modest residual misfit. Average suppression at Year 3 was 3.109 (SE = 0.012, p < .001) and rose by 0.110 points per year (SE = 0.005, p < .001), indicating a small but reliable increase. Intercept and slope variances (0.322 and 0.046, both p < .001) confirmed that adolescents differed markedly in both starting levels and rates of change. The negative intercept–slope covariance (−0.039, p < .001) implies that youth who began with high suppression tended to grow more slowly, whereas those starting lower closed the gap. Residual variances declined from 0.439 at Year 3 to 0.292 by Year 6, suggesting that measurements became more stable across successive assessments. Overall, the model depicts a cohort-wide rise in suppression layered on top of substantial between-person heterogeneity.
Visualization Notes
Each gray line shows a participant’s suppression trajectory across the four assessments, while blue points mark the observed scores and the red line traces the sample-wide mean. The upward tilt of the red line signals a cohort-level increase in suppression, yet the fan of gray lines makes it clear that individuals follow very different paths—some rise steeply, others flatten or dip. Because the observed points hug their respective lines, the plot also reassures us that the smoothing reflects the actual data rather than an artifact of model assumptions. In short, the figure simultaneously communicates the population trend and the heterogeneity that motivates a latent growth curve approach.