. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Sep 8.

Published in final edited form as: J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2008 Oct;37(4):794–807. doi: 10.1080/15374410802359635

Table 2.

Fit Statistics and Comparisons of Alternative Models of the Latent Structure of the Investigational Child and Adolescent Dispositions Scale Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Each Member of 6- through 17-Year-Old twin Pairs, Randomly Designated as “Twin 1” or “Twin 2” in Study 2.

Alternative models	Twin	d.f.	Satorra- Bentler χ²	NFI	RMR	AIC	RMSEA (90% C.I.)	Scaled Δ χ²^a	d.f.
One factor	1	299	8801	.80	.11	8905	.13 (.12 - .13)	4804^*	3
	2	299	9206	.76	.089	9310	.13 (.13 - .13)	6836^*	3
Three factors (orthogonal)	1	299	3104	.91	.077	3208	.072 (.070-.075)	278^*	3
	2	299	3128	.89	.069	3232	.072 (.070-.075)	220^*	3
Three factors (correlated)	1	296	2825	.91	.056	2935	.069 (.067 - .071)	Reference model
	2	296	2894	.90	.052	3004	.070 (.068 - .072)	Reference model

All model Satorra-Bentler χ² tests significant at p < .0001.

p < .0001.

Compared to the correlated 3-factor structure for the same twin.

Note: NFI = normed fit index; RMR = root mean square residual; AIC = Akaike's Information Criterion; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. After deletion of participants with missing data on any caretaker-rated CADS items, N = 1,799 for “twin 1” and N = 1,804 for “twin 2.”