Unpacking the Myth in the Associations Between Self-control and Gaming Disorder in Children and Adolescents: A Comparison Between Traditional and Random Intercept Cross-lagged Panel Model Analyses

Table 4 Summary of the within-person effects of the RI-CLPM

	Covariance/coefficient	p	Correlation/standardized coefficient
Path between within components on each occasion^a
SC T1 and GAS T1	− 0.016 [− 0.039, 0.007]	0.17	− 0.52
SC T2 and GAS T2	− 0.011 [− 0.028, 0.005]	0.18	− 0.47
SC T3 and GAS T3	− 0.009 [− 0.021, 0.004]	0.17	− 0.46
Autoregressive paths^b
SC T1 to SC T2	0.23 [0.034, 0.43]	0.022	0.25
SC T2 to SC T3	0.23 [0.036, 0.43]	0.020	0.27
GAS T1 to GAS T2	0.13 [− 0.12, 0.39]	0.30	0.15
GAS T2 to GAS T3	0.40 [0.15, 0.64]	0.001	0.41
Cross-lagged paths^b
SC T1 to GAS T2	− 1.57 [− 4.49, 1.36]	0.29	− 0.16
SC T2 to GAS T3	0.72 [− 1.65, 3.10]	0.55	0.071
GAS T1 to SC T2	0.001 [− 0.015, 0.017]	0.92	0.010
GAS T2 to SC T3	− 0.012 [− 0.037, 0.013]	0.35	− 0.15

RI-CLPM, random intercept cross-lagged panel model; SC, self-control; GAS, gaming addiction scale; T1, time 1; T2, time 2; T3, time 3. The RI-CLPM analysis was conducted by controlling for age, sex, and socioeconomic status (SES) level. 95% CIs [lower, upper] are given in brackets in the covariance/coefficient column. Bold values represent significance at p < 0.05
^aThe values represent the covariance/correlation coefficients
^bThe values represent the regression coefficients/standardized regression coefficients