. 2023 Jul 6;14:1147401. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147401

TABLE 3.

Model fit evaluation information for the latent class analysis of the six selected procrastination items.

Model	LL	BIC	AIC	Npar	L²	df	Class. Err.
1-cluster	−8562.08	17317.29	17180.15	28	4831.78	962	0.00
2-cluster	−7838.74	15918.89	15747.47	35	3385.10	955	0.05
3-cluster	−7691.21	1572.12	15466.41	42	3090.04	948	0.11
4-cluster	−7607.55	15553.09	15313.10	49	2922.73	941	0.14
5-cluster	−7560.41	15507.10	15232.82	56	2828.45	934	0.16
6-cluster	7521.62	15477.79	15169.23	63	2750.86	927	0.18
7-cluster	−7501.69	15486.21	15486.21	70	2711.00	920	0.19
Final model^a
6-cluster	−7488.34	15425.04	15106.68	65	2684.31	925	0.20

n = 990. LL, log-likelihood; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; AIC, Akaike information criterion; Npar, number of estimated parameters; L², square of the likelihood; df, degrees of freedom; Class. Err., classification error.

^aFour bivariate residuals are included as direct effects in the final 6-cluster model.