So forth). As previously noted, this strategy allowed us to control for any possible intergenerational continuities or genetic effects (i.e., family dependencies) in the measuresAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.Masarik et al.Pageof interest, given that one member of the G2 romantic couple could be a biological child of the G1 couple. In brief, we compared a measurement model in which a given indicator was constrained to be equal across generations to a model in which the same indicator was freely estimated (i.e., unconstrained) and we did so for each indicator for all key latent variables. At each step in the process, we compared differences in the chi-square statistic relative to degrees of freedom in models without the imposed equality constraint compared to models with the equality constraint (i.e., nested models). Theoretically, if the change in chi-square relative to degrees of freedom is large, that constraint should be removed as it may indicate poor model specification. However, as noted by several researchers, this oversimplified version of the chi-square test may not reliably guide model evaluation as it is overly sensitive to sample size and therefore can violate basic assumptions underlying the test (e.g., Chen, 2007; Hu Bentler, 1998). For this reason, relying solely on the chi-square test is often not the best indicator of change in model fit; therefore, we also considered other practical fit indices (e.g., CFI, RMSEA) to better get PD150606 understand the best way to specify the models throughout the process. Practical model fit indices remained acceptable when factor loadings were constrained to be equal across G1 and G2 couples (CFI = .987 and RMSEA = .021 for fully TF14016 web unconstrained factor loading model; CFI = .975 and RMSEA = .029 for fully constrained factor loading model). These findings suggest that the latent factors operated similarly for G1 and G2 couples and that associations among variables could be compared across groups. Structural Equation Models: Hypothesized Main Effects We hypothesized that the effects of economic pressure and effective problem solving on couples’ hostility would replicate across G1 and G2 couples. To evaluate these predictions, we compared models in which each hypothesized pathway was constrained to equality for both generations to a model in which the same pathway was freely estimated for each generation. For instance, we constrained the pathway from economic pressure to hostility at T2 to be equal for G1 and G2 couples and then compared it to a model in which this pathway was unconstrained. We followed this same strategy for each predicted pathway in the model. Control variables (education, income, and conscientiousness) were included in all models as: (a) correlates of all T1 variables, and (b) predictors of T2 romantic relationship hostility. Practical model fit indices remained unchanged from the fully unconstrained structural model (CFI = .970; RMSEA = .031) to the fully constrained structural model (CFI = .970; RMSEA = .031). Moreover, practical model fit remained unchanged after constraining the regression pathways from the control variables to T2 hostility to be equal for G1 and G2 couples (CFI = .970 and RMSEA = .031). This final, fully constrained structural equation model testing the hypothesized main effects fit the data adequately (2 = 870.925, df = 613; CFI = .970; TLI = .966; RMSEA =.So forth). As previously noted, this strategy allowed us to control for any possible intergenerational continuities or genetic effects (i.e., family dependencies) in the measuresAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.Masarik et al.Pageof interest, given that one member of the G2 romantic couple could be a biological child of the G1 couple. In brief, we compared a measurement model in which a given indicator was constrained to be equal across generations to a model in which the same indicator was freely estimated (i.e., unconstrained) and we did so for each indicator for all key latent variables. At each step in the process, we compared differences in the chi-square statistic relative to degrees of freedom in models without the imposed equality constraint compared to models with the equality constraint (i.e., nested models). Theoretically, if the change in chi-square relative to degrees of freedom is large, that constraint should be removed as it may indicate poor model specification. However, as noted by several researchers, this oversimplified version of the chi-square test may not reliably guide model evaluation as it is overly sensitive to sample size and therefore can violate basic assumptions underlying the test (e.g., Chen, 2007; Hu Bentler, 1998). For this reason, relying solely on the chi-square test is often not the best indicator of change in model fit; therefore, we also considered other practical fit indices (e.g., CFI, RMSEA) to better understand the best way to specify the models throughout the process. Practical model fit indices remained acceptable when factor loadings were constrained to be equal across G1 and G2 couples (CFI = .987 and RMSEA = .021 for fully unconstrained factor loading model; CFI = .975 and RMSEA = .029 for fully constrained factor loading model). These findings suggest that the latent factors operated similarly for G1 and G2 couples and that associations among variables could be compared across groups. Structural Equation Models: Hypothesized Main Effects We hypothesized that the effects of economic pressure and effective problem solving on couples’ hostility would replicate across G1 and G2 couples. To evaluate these predictions, we compared models in which each hypothesized pathway was constrained to equality for both generations to a model in which the same pathway was freely estimated for each generation. For instance, we constrained the pathway from economic pressure to hostility at T2 to be equal for G1 and G2 couples and then compared it to a model in which this pathway was unconstrained. We followed this same strategy for each predicted pathway in the model. Control variables (education, income, and conscientiousness) were included in all models as: (a) correlates of all T1 variables, and (b) predictors of T2 romantic relationship hostility. Practical model fit indices remained unchanged from the fully unconstrained structural model (CFI = .970; RMSEA = .031) to the fully constrained structural model (CFI = .970; RMSEA = .031). Moreover, practical model fit remained unchanged after constraining the regression pathways from the control variables to T2 hostility to be equal for G1 and G2 couples (CFI = .970 and RMSEA = .031). This final, fully constrained structural equation model testing the hypothesized main effects fit the data adequately (2 = 870.925, df = 613; CFI = .970; TLI = .966; RMSEA =.