Table 4.
Model | df | χ 2 | p-value | χ2/df | △χ2 (△df) | CFI | RMSEA | SRMR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Null Model | 81 | 562.63 | .00 | 6.93 | ||||
Model 1 | 9 | 19.88 | .02 | 2.21 | -- | .98 | .09 | .03 |
Model 2 | 17 | 29.84 | .03 | 1.76 | 9.96(8) | .97 | .07 | .04 |
Model 3 | 19 | 30.27 | .05 | 1.59 | .43(2) | .98 | .06 | .04 |
Model 4 | 21 | 41.12 | .01 | 1.99 | 10.85(2)* | .96 | .08 | .04 |
Model 5 | 23 | 41.65 | .01 | 1.81 | .53(2) | .96 | .07 | .04 |
Note. Models 1-5 were compared hierarchically. Model 1 vs. 2: Model 2 was not significantly better fitting but was more parsimonious than Model 1; Model 2 was retained. Model 2 vs. 3: Model 3 also was not significantly better fitting than Model 2 but was more parsimonious than Model 2; Model 3 was retained. Model 3 vs. 4: Model 4 was significantly worse fitting than Model 3; Model 3 was retained. (Model 4 vs. 5: Model 5 was not significantly better fitting than Model 4 but was more parsimonious; Model 5 was retained.) Model 3 vs. 5: Model 3 was a significantly stronger fit than Model 5, so Model 3 was determined to be the best fitting, final model.
p < .05.