Table 4.
Goodness-of-fit indices for several MUEQ-Br revised factor solutions obtained by confirmatory factor analysis (N = 386)
| X 2 (df) | CAIC * | CFI £ | GFI ψ | NNFI *** | ECVI& (90% CI) | RMSEA ** (90% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 3,775.47 (1524) | 4,672.78 | 0.66 | 0.72 | 0.64 | 10.47 (10.01–10.96) | 0.06 (0.059–0.066) |
| Model 2 | 1,962.45 (990) | 3,256.24 | 0.83 | 0.75 | 0.82 | 6.06 (5.74–6.40) | 0.05 (0.041–0.056) |
| Model 3 | 1,145.28 (705) | 2,230.40 | 0.91 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 3.78 (3.55–4.04) | 0.04 (0.036–0.044) |
Note. Model 1 had seven domains and 59 questions and was based on Bekiari et al. [11]. Model 2 had six domains (excluding work environment) and 50 questions and was based on Eltayeb et al. [2]. Model 3 had six domains (excluding work environment) and 41 questions (nine questions excluded: one from work station, five from body posture, two from break time, and one from social support).
*CAIC: consistent with the Akaike information criterion.
**RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; “90% CI” = 90% confidence interval for RMSEA.
***NNFI: non-normed fit index.
£CFI: comparative fit index.
ψGFI: goodness-of-fit index.
&ECVI: expected cross-validation index and 90% CI.