Table 3.

Model Comparison and Fit Indices

	χ2		Δ in χ2		χ2/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI
	Value (df)	p-value	Value (df)	p-value
Model 1	6.22 (4)	0.18	--	--	1.56	0.03	1.00	0.99
Model 2	7.67 (8)	0.47	1.46 (4)	.80<p<.90	0.96	0.00	1.00	1.00
Model 3	12.38 (11)	0.34	4.71 (3)	.10<p<.20	1.13	0.01	1.00	1.00
Model 4	139.10 (69)	0.00	--	--	2.02	0.04	0.95	0.92
Model 5	136.60 (76)	0.00	5.27 (7)	0.628	1.80	0.03	0.96	0.94

Notes: Model 1 is a completely unconstrained multi-group CFA model. Model 2 adds the loadings of the indicators of the latent factor constrained across groups and intercepts freely estimated. Model 3 restricted the intercepts and allowed the erection function and orgasmic function intercepts to be freely estimated. Model 4 used Model 3 to create a structural model, in which parameters were unconstrained across groups. Model 5 was the final structural equation model, with all structural regression coefficients constrained across groups, except for stimulant use and CD4 cell count, which were set to zero in the HIV-negative group. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index (CFI); TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index.