Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Struct Equ Modeling. 2013 Jul 22;20(3):384–408. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2013.797819

TABLE 2.

Solution 1: EQS Fit Indexes for Alternative Models Using Different Subsets of Variables per Sample

Model χ2 df Prob CFI TLI RMSEA [CI] Δχ2 Δdf
Separate analyses by sample
 FACHS (7 manifest variables) 8.57 11 .66 1.000 1.010 .000 [.000, .041]
 CFP (11 manifest variables) 58.77 39 .02 1.000 1.024 .044 [.017, .067]
 IYFP (7 manifest variables) 6.96 11 .80 1.000 1.009 .000 [.000, .035]
 Total 74.30 61
Three-group analyses
 Configural invariance 74.32 61 .12 1.000 1.015 .025 [.000, .042]
 Weak factorial invariance 95.81 69 .02 1.000 1.011 .033 [.014, .048] 21.49 8
 Strong factorial invariance 139.36 77 < .001 1.000 1.006 .048 [.035, .060] 43.55 8
 Strict factorial invariance 256.10 91 < .001 1.000 1.007 .071 [.061, .082] 116.74 14

Note. Family and Community Health Study (FACHS) study N = 428 African American families; California Families Project (CFP) study N = 262 Mexican-origin families; and Iowa Youth and Families Project (IYFP) study N = 385 European American families. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA [CI] = root mean square error of approximation and its associated confidence interval.