Table 4.

Fit statistics and comparisons of alternative models of the latent structure of the self-reportversion of the Child and Adolescent Dispositions Scale using confirmatory factor analysis for each member ofthe 9–17 yearold twin pairs, randomly designated as “twin 1” and “twin 2” in Study 2 (Tennessee Twins Study).

Models	Twin	d.f.	Satorra-Bentler χ2	NFI	RMR	AIC	RMSEA (90% C.I.)	Scaled Δ χ2 a	d.f.
Hypothesized 3-factor model:
Three factors (orthogonal)	1	275	1389	.88	.043	1489	.055 (.052–.058)	12*	3
	2	275	1370	.88	.045	1470	.055 (.052–.058)	40*	3
Three factors (correlated)	1	272	1377	.88	.042	1483	.055 (.052–.058)
	2	272	1325	.88	.040	1431	.054 (.051–.057)
Alternative models:
One factor	1	275	3578	.75	.071	3678	.094 (.092–.097)	2275*	3
	2	275	3254	.77	.064	3354	.090 (.088–.093)	2968*	3
Two factors (correlated)	1	274	2403	.82	.058	2505	.076 (.073–.079)	1481*	2
	2	274	2270	.83	.055	2372	.074 (.071–.077)	896*	2

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

^*p < .05.

Note: 1-factor = Negative Emotionality + Prosociality + Daring; 2 factors = Negative Emotionality, Prosociality + Daring; 3 factors = Negative Emotionality, Prosociality, and Daring; NFI = normed fit index; RMR = root mean square residual; AIC = Akaike’s Information Criterion; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; N = 830 for “twin 1” and N = 832 for “twin 2.”