Table 3.
Testing for Invariance of the Three-Factor Model Across White (n = 1,205) and Black (n = 1,650) Women
| Model and type | MLR χ2 | df | CFI | RMSEA [90% CI] | SRMR | Model comparison | ΔCFI | ΔMLR χ2 | df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1: Configural invariance (baseline model) | ||||||||||
| Full | 1,076.47 | 264 | .915 | .047 [0.044, 0.050] | .048 | |||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Model 2: Weak factorial invariance (invariance of factor loadings) | ||||||||||
| Full (Model 2a) | 1,096.13 | 279 | .914 | .045 [0.043, 0.048] | .056 | 2a vs. 1 | .001 | 34.95 | 15 | <.01 |
| Partial (Model 2b) | 1,075.74 | 277 | .916 | .045 [0.042, 0.048] | .054 | 2b vs. 1 | .001 | 20.34 | 13 | >.05 |
|
| ||||||||||
| Model 3: Strong factorial invariance (invariance of factor loadings and intercepts) | ||||||||||
| Full (Model 3a) | 1,267.37 | 294 | .898 | .048 [0.046, 0.051] | .060 | 3a vs. 1 | .017 | 190.45 | 30 | <.001 |
| Partial (Model 3b) | 1,150.43 | 291 | .910 | .046 [0.043, 0.048] | .057 | 3b vs. 1 | .005 | 77.91 | 27 | <.001 |
|
| ||||||||||
| Model 4: Partial strong factorial invariance and full latent factor means invariance | ||||||||||
| Full | 1,209.13 | 294 | .904 | .047 [0.044, 0.050] | .071 | 4 vs. 3b | .011 | 84.84 | 3 | <.001 |
Note. All models were adjusted for sample weights and clusters. MLR = robust maximum likelihood; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual.