Interpretation
The LGCM estimated a mean suppression score of 3.11 at Year 3 (SE = 0.021, p < .001) and a gradual increase of 0.11 points per year (SE = 0.007, p < .001). Intercept and slope variances (0.322 and 0.046, both p < .001) were sizable, confirming that youth differed widely in both starting levels and subsequent change. The negative interceptโslope covariance (โ0.039, p < .001) indicates a leveling effect: adolescents who began with higher suppression tended to grow more slowly, whereas those starting low often caught up.Model fit was generally solid (CFI = 0.949, TLI = 0.938, SRMR = 0.045), though the RMSEA of 0.092 hints at minor misfit that could reflect omitted time-specific covariances. Cluster-robust standard errors were computed for both sites and families; adding the family level barely shifted estimates, suggesting that most dependency operates at the site level, but the dual adjustment still guards against underestimated SEs. Finally, residual variances shrank from 0.439 at Year 3 to 0.292 at Year 6, implying that suppression measurements became more stable as participants aged.
Interpretation
This plot visualizes individual trajectories and the overall trend in suppression scores across four annual assessments. Each line represents the trajectory of a randomly selected subset of participants, highlighting individual differences in suppression development over time.Blue points represent observed suppression scores at each time point, providing a clear depiction of the data distribution.Gray lines connect individual trajectories, illustrating within-person variability in suppression changes.The red smoothed curve represents the overall trend, estimated using a linear regression model, capturing the general pattern of suppression growth with a confidence interval (light pink shading).While many participants exhibit a general increase in suppression, others show stable or declining trajectories, emphasizing heterogeneity in individual change patterns.Between-person differences in initial suppression levels and rates of change reinforce the need for latent growth models to capture both within- and between-person variability in suppression development.