Page 158 - Maša Vidmar, Vedenjske težave in učna uspešnost. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut, 2017. Digitalna knjižnica, Dissertationes, 30
P. 158
vedenjske težave in učna uspešnost
With regard to Hypothesis 3, it was established that gender did not
significantly predict neither academic achievement nor internalizing be-
haviour at T2, (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA (CI) = 0.07 (0.06–0.08), SRMR = 0.10,
χ2 (83) = 218.42, p < 0.001). The moderator role of gender was not nonsignif-
icant. The results partially support Hypothesis 3.
In relation to Hypothesis 4, it was proven that enrolment into pre-
school significantly contributed to the absence of internalizing behaviour
in first grade students (but not to higher academic achievement). The chil-
dren, who were enrolled into preschool for longer, showed less internalizing
behaviour in the first grade (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA (CI) = 0.07 (0.06–0.08),
SRMR = 0.10, χ2 (83) = 207.43, p < 0.001). The results are partially consistent
with Hypothesis 4.
In accordance with Hypothesis 5, we included the chosen predictors
in the SEM model from Hypothesis 2. After including each predictor indi-
vidually and altering the model in accordance with theoretical arguments
and modification indices, the final model had satisfactory fit in two indices
(CFI = 0.91, RMSEA (CI) = 0.06 (0.05–0.07), SRMR = 0.11, χ2 (391) = 829.87,
p < 0.001). The relations between the constructs are shown in Figure 1 and
the loading of indicators in Table 1. The results are partially compliant with
Hypothesis 5.
Table 1: Factors of internalizing behaviour and academic achievement: measurement model.a
T1/T2 T4
Latent variable Unst. Stand. Unst. Stand.
Indicator load. load. load. load.
Mother’s psychological functioning
Optimism (LOT-R) 1.00 0.59 //
//
Self-esteem (RSES) 0.99 0.85 //
//
Life satisfaction(SWLS) 1.53 0.58
//
Depressive tendencies (LDT) -1.36 -0.74 //
//
Home environment (VDO-II) //
Authoritativeness 1.00 0.54
Ineffective control -1.52 -0.50
Power assertion -0.62 -0.35
Stimulation 1.04 0.45
158
With regard to Hypothesis 3, it was established that gender did not
significantly predict neither academic achievement nor internalizing be-
haviour at T2, (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA (CI) = 0.07 (0.06–0.08), SRMR = 0.10,
χ2 (83) = 218.42, p < 0.001). The moderator role of gender was not nonsignif-
icant. The results partially support Hypothesis 3.
In relation to Hypothesis 4, it was proven that enrolment into pre-
school significantly contributed to the absence of internalizing behaviour
in first grade students (but not to higher academic achievement). The chil-
dren, who were enrolled into preschool for longer, showed less internalizing
behaviour in the first grade (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA (CI) = 0.07 (0.06–0.08),
SRMR = 0.10, χ2 (83) = 207.43, p < 0.001). The results are partially consistent
with Hypothesis 4.
In accordance with Hypothesis 5, we included the chosen predictors
in the SEM model from Hypothesis 2. After including each predictor indi-
vidually and altering the model in accordance with theoretical arguments
and modification indices, the final model had satisfactory fit in two indices
(CFI = 0.91, RMSEA (CI) = 0.06 (0.05–0.07), SRMR = 0.11, χ2 (391) = 829.87,
p < 0.001). The relations between the constructs are shown in Figure 1 and
the loading of indicators in Table 1. The results are partially compliant with
Hypothesis 5.
Table 1: Factors of internalizing behaviour and academic achievement: measurement model.a
T1/T2 T4
Latent variable Unst. Stand. Unst. Stand.
Indicator load. load. load. load.
Mother’s psychological functioning
Optimism (LOT-R) 1.00 0.59 //
//
Self-esteem (RSES) 0.99 0.85 //
//
Life satisfaction(SWLS) 1.53 0.58
//
Depressive tendencies (LDT) -1.36 -0.74 //
//
Home environment (VDO-II) //
Authoritativeness 1.00 0.54
Ineffective control -1.52 -0.50
Power assertion -0.62 -0.35
Stimulation 1.04 0.45
158
