The factor loadings, residual variances, and model fit statistics were comparable in the down-sampled single factor solution (Fig. 2; Table S2). Neither the factor loadings nor residual variances were statistically different from the original estimates (a path diagram of the original estimates was therefore omitted). The largest non-significant difference was observed for the factor loading of the indicator phenotype RISK, which increased from 0.54 (SE = 0.03) to 0.56 (SE = 0.03). A similar-sized, non-significant decrease was observed for CANN: from 0.77 (SE = 0.03) to 0.75 (SE = 0.03). Furthermore, the comparative fit index (CFI) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were similar between the down-sampled and original factor models and were within the preregistered thresholds for “good fit” (i.e., CFI > 0.9, and SRMR < 0.08) of the original study. In our example, we obtain close to identical factor loadings and model fit when applying the best-fitting factor solution of the original study to the empirical genetic covariance matrix of the down-sampled summary statistics.
