The reciprocal EF–ER model fits only marginally better than a forward-only model, so model preference rests on theory as much as fit¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The reciprocal and forward-only (EF → ER) models fit almost indistinguishably, with the reciprocal model holding only a slender AIC edge (24812.4 versus 24816.1); reverse-only and correlated-factors models fit worse. → Shi Guochun 2026

Evidence¶

Shi Guochun 2026¶

Shi Guochun, Shi Zimo, Wang Qianqian. (2026). Cross-sectional bidirectional associations between executive function and emotion regulation in adolescents: the moderating role of digital engagement intensity. BMC Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-05038-8

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Descriptive comparison of four competing structural specifications (reciprocal, forward-only, reverse-only, correlated factors) in the same cross-sectional dataset, using fit indices and AIC/BIC. The reciprocal model showed χ²/df = 2.37, CFI = 0.960, RMSEA = 0.051, SRMR = 0.048.

"The reciprocal and the forward-only (EF → ER) models fit the data almost indistinguishably, with the reciprocal model holding only a slender edge on the information criteria (AIC = 24812.4 versus 24816.1)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In an empirical comparison on a testlet-based English assessment test, the bifactor model is preferred over the second-order and unidimensional 2PL models by both AIC and BIC — related
• Digital use intensity attenuates the positive EF–reappraisal association, more pronouncedly on the EF→ER pathway than the reverse — related
• Temporal direction between PNT and LOU could not be identified: the reversed specification was observationally equivalent — related
• The reciprocal relations model fits better than unidirectional alternatives, supporting reciprocal causation between emotions and achievement — related