. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Dec 17.

Published in final edited form as: J Pers. 2009 May 18;77(4):10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00573.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00573.x

Table 3.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results of Hedonic, Eudaimonic, Social, and Integrated 14-Factor Models of Well-Being

Sample	Latent Structure	χ²	df	CFI	NNFI	RMSEA	90% CI	SRMR
Student (n =591)	Hedonic well-being	137.06	32	.983	.977	.075	.062–.088	.047
	Eudaimonic well-being	473.90	120	.977	.971	.071	.064–.077	.050
	Social well-being	263.02	80	.985	.980	.062	.054–.071	.041
	Integrated 14-factor model	1,870.70	769	.985	.983	.049	.046–.052	.046
MIDUS 2 (n =4,043)	Hedonic well-being	1,262.46	41	.975	.966	.086	.082–.090	.045
	Eudaimonic well-being	2,036.79	120	.982	.977	.063	.061–.065	.034
	Social well-being	2,951.03	80	.880	.842	.094	.092–.097	.072
	Integrated 14-factor model	11,162.88	811	.973	.969	.056	.055–.057	.046