Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Exp Child Psychol. 2010 Sep 29;108(3):436–452. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.008

Table 4.

Goodness of fit indices for alternative CFA models of preschool executive function.

Model (Number of Factors) χ2 df p RMSEA CFI BIC Model Comparison χ2 difference df difference p
1. Unitary Executive Function (1) 14.84 14 0.39 0.02 0.99 5074.01
2. Working Memory and Inhibition (2) 12.40 13 0.49 0.00 1.00 5077.01 Model 1 vs. Model 2 2.44 1 .12
3. Spatial and Nonspatial Tasks (2) 14.58 13 0.33 0.02 0.99 5079.183 Model 1 vs. Model 3 0.26 1 .61
4. Feedback and Nonfeedback Tasks (2) 14.23 13 0.36 0.02 0.99 5078.83 Model 1 vs. Model 4 0.61 1 .43

Note: For model comparisons, favored model is underlined. When two models did not differ statistically, the more parsimonious model was chosen (Bollen, 1989). BIC = Bayesian information criterion; CFA = Confirmatory Factor Analysis; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation