Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2006 Feb 27.
Published in final edited form as: J Behav Med. 2005 Oct 25;28(5):493–506. doi: 10.1007/s10865-005-9014-7

Table 5.

Summary of Simultaneous Group Comparisons via LISREL

Model χ2 df p RMSEA GFI RMR CFI Δχ2 Δdf p(Δχ2) Δχ2cum df pcum
1. Base Model: All Model Parameter Invariant 58.65 37 .01 .066 .93 .089 .93
1.1 TMM-1: β risk perception on intention free 43.69 36 .18 .038 .95 .061 .98 14.96 1 <.0001
1.2 TMM-2: β knowledge on intention free 40.58 35 .24 .032 .95 .054 .98 3.11 1 <.05 18.07 2 .0001
1.3 TMM-3: γ No. of partners on risk perception free
36.21
34
.37
.017
.96
.059
.99
4.37
1
<.025
22.44
3
.0001
2. Comparison Model: AllStructural Paths (γ, β) free 28.62 27 .38 .012 .97 .050 1.00 7.59 7 n. s.
3. Final model (TMM-3, sign. paths only, two φ free) 25.82 35 .87 .000 .97 .056 1.00

Note: TMM = Theoretical Model Modification;RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation;CFI = Comparative Fit Index;RMR = Root Mean Square Residual;GFI = Goodness of Fit Index;AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; %χ2 = % contribution of the high-anger group to the χ2 statistic; Δχ2 = Chi Square difference to the final model in the low-anger group;Δdf = degrees of freedom for Δχ2.