Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Aug 4.
Published in final edited form as: Dev Psychopathol. 2002;14(2):253–278. doi: 10.1017/s0954579402002043

Table 4.

Goodness-of-fit summary for father–infant attachment

Model χ2 df NFI CFI RMSEA (90% CI)
Direct effects
 Baseline 162.88 86 0.98 0.99 .059 (.043, .073)
 Model 1a 159.42 85 0.98 0.99 .058 (.043, .073)
 Model 2b 157.07 81 0.98 0.99 .06 (.044, .075)
Indirect effects
 Baseline 277.79 148 0.97 0.99 .059 (.047, .071)
 Model 1c 269.60 146 0.98 0.99 .060 (.049, .070)
 Model 2d 265.25 142 0.98 0.99 .057 (.045, .069)

Note: NFI, nonnormed fit index; CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; CI, confidence interval. All effects were significant at p < .001.

a

Direct paths from other risk factors to attachment constrained to zero.

b

Direct paths from other risk factors to attachment estimated.

c

Paths from other risk factors to fathers’ sensitivity constrained to zero—final model.

d

Paths from other risk factors to fathers’ sensitivity estimated.