Table 2 Results of four cross-lagged... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2

Results of four cross-lagged structural regression models between a hostile work climate and workplace bullying

		Test statistics					Model comparison
		χ²	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA (90% CI)	Comparison	(df) χ²
M1	Stability model	1,127.14***	324	0.93	0.92	0.052 (0.049–0.055)
M2	Forward model (Hostile T1 → Bullying T2)	1,116.72***	323	0.93	0.92	0.052 (0.048–0.055)	M2 vs M1	(1) 10.43**
M3	Reversed model (Bullying T1 → Hostile T2)	1,114.90***	323	0.93	0.92	0.052 (0.048–0.055)	M3 vs M1 M3 vs M2	(1) 12.24*** (−) 1.83 ns
M4	Reciprocal model (Hostile T1 → Bullying T2 and Bullying T1 → Hostile T2)	1,107.79***	322	0.93	0.92	0.052 (0.048–0.055)	M4 vs M1 M4 vs M2 M4 vs M3	(2) 19.35* (1) 8.92 (1) 7.11**

		Test statistics					Model comparison
		χ²	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA (90% CI)	Comparison	(df) χ²
M1	Stability model	1,127.14***	324	0.93	0.92	0.052 (0.049–0.055)
M2	Forward model (Hostile T1 → Bullying T2)	1,116.72***	323	0.93	0.92	0.052 (0.048–0.055)	M2 vs M1	(1) 10.43**
M3	Reversed model (Bullying T1 → Hostile T2)	1,114.90***	323	0.93	0.92	0.052 (0.048–0.055)	M3 vs M1M3 vs M2	(1) 12.24***(−) 1.83 ns
M4	Reciprocal model (Hostile T1 → Bullying T2 and Bullying T1 → Hostile T2)	1,107.79***	322	0.93	0.92	0.052 (0.048–0.055)	M4 vs M1M4 vs M2M4 vs M3	(2) 19.35*(1) 8.92(1) 7.11**

Note(s): *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. ns = not significant

Source(s): Created by the authors