Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Educ Psychol. 2014 Mar 10;106(3):779–798. doi: 10.1037/a0035984

Table 4.

Examination of measurement invariance between Grades 4, 5, and 6

df χ2 CFI TLI RMSEA(90% CI) SRMR ∆df ∆χ2
Model 1 Baseline Model 102 283.23*** .96 .93 .08
(.07, .09)		 .04
Model 2 (compared to Model 1) Model with equal loadings 114 321.78*** .95 .93 .08
(.07, .09)		 .06 12 37.90***
Model 3 (compared to Model 1) Model with equal loadings except narrative writing of Grade 5 113 294.55*** .96 .93 .08
(.07, .09)		 .05 11 14.03
Model 4 (compared to Model 3) Model 3 + equal intercepts 125 329.59*** .95 .93 .08
(.07, .09)		 .05 12 34.90***
Model 5 (compared to Model 3) Model 3 + equal intercepts except operational span working memory of Grade 5 and text comprehension task 2 of Grades 5 and 6 122 299.95*** .96 .94 .07
(.06, .09)		 .05 9 14.61

Note.

***

p<.001. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis coefficient; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR=standardized root mean squared residual;