No models met our preregistered criteria for good fit based on model fit indices. Nevertheless, we evaluated each model against the other evaluation criteria outlined in the methods (i.e., magnitude, median and SD of the indicators’ loadings, structural validity and model characteristics) to decide which models to carry forward into subsequent analyses. We determined that the EXT-resARF and Bifactor BD-SUB models were untenable given evidence of low factor loadings, high standard errors, poor reliability and negative residual variances. The three remaining models, the common factor, EXT-ARF and BD-SUB models, all had high loadings, good reliability, and no evidence of concerning model characteristics (i.e., high standard errors or negative residual variances). The factors in both the EXT-ARF and BD-SUB models were very highly genetically correlated, suggesting that the two dimensions may not be meaningfully distinct. We carried forward all three remaining models into the sensitivity and genetic correlation analyses to further evaluate this question.
