Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Dec 29.
Published in final edited form as: Methodology (Gott). 2008;4(1):22–36. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241.4.1.22

Table 6.

Goodness-of-fit Indices of 2LDS Models (MHS and AAPT Samples)

Model χ2 df RMSEA (90% CI) CFI TLI BIC Δχ2 / Δdf
MHS
2LDS2a 185 93 .06 (.05 - .07) .96 .94 6876 ---
2LDS2b 180 93 .06 (.05 - .07) .96 .95 6871 ---
2LDS2c 178 93 .06 (.05 - .07) .96 .95 6868 ---
2LDS2d 178 93 .06 (.05 - .07) .96 .95 6869 ---
2LDS3 194 102 .06 (.05 - .07) .96 .95 6835 9 / 9
2LDS4 203 111 .06 (.04 - .07) .96 .95 6794 9 / 9
2LDS5 261 123 .07 (.05 - .08) .94 .94 6785 58 / 12
2LDS6 290 131 .07 (.06 - .08) .93 .93 6769 29 / 8
AAPT
2LDS2a 147 77 .04 (.03 - .05) .97 .96 18384 ---
2LDS2b 144 77 .04 (.03 - .05) .97 .96 18380 ---
2LDS2c 198 77 .05 (.04 - .06) .95 .93 18434 ---
2LDS3 262 85 .06 (.05 - .07) .93 .91 18446 64 / 8
2LDS4 313 93 .06 (.06 - .07) .91 .90 18447 51 / 8
2LDS5 563 105 .08 (.08 - .09) .81 .81 18620 258 / 12
2LDS6 614 113 .09 (.08 - .09) .80 .81 18620 51 / 8