Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Oct 16.
Published in final edited form as: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008 May;137(2):201–225. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.201

Table B1.

Fit Statistics for the Common Pathway vs. Independent Pathways Models

Common Pathway Independent Pathways χ2 Difference
Common
Factor		 χ2 df p RMSEA TLI χ2 df p RMSEA TLI χ2diff df p
Inhibiting 50.90 37 .064 .051 .951 47.47 33 .049 .055 .943 3.43 4 .489
Updating 34.56 37 .584 .000 1.01 33.38 33 .449 .009 .999 1.18 4 .881
Shifting 45.86 37 .151 .040 .983 40.31 33 .178 .039 .985 5.55 4 .235
All three EFs 384.45 322 .010 .036 .949 380.94 318 .009 .037 .947 3.51 4 .476

Note. EF = executive function; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation. TLI = Tucker-Lewis index. χ2/df < 2, RMSEA < .06, and TLI > .95 indicate good fit. Non-significant χ2 differences indicate that the reduced common pathway models did not provide a significantly worse fit than the independent pathways models.