. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 May 31.

Published in final edited form as: Read Writ. 2012 Aug 25;26(6):1031–1056. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9405-4

Table 5.

Examination of measurement invariance between samples A and B for Grades 3 and 7.

		df	χ²	CFI	TLI	RMSEA (90% CI)	SRMR	Δχ²	Δdf
Grade 4
Model 1	Baseline model	77	125.17^***	.97	.95	.06 (.04–.08)	.07
Model 2 (compared to Model 1)	Model with equal loadings	81	155.54^***	.95	.92	.08 (.06–.09)	.08	73.64^***	4
Model 3 (compared to Model 1)	Model with equal loadings except TNW	80	131.27^***	.96	.95	.06 (.04–.08)	.07	6.58	3
Model 4 (compared to Model 3)	Model 3 + equal intercepts	88	33.28^***	.83	.76	.13 (.12–.15)	.21	173.21^***	8
Model 5 (compared to Model 3)	Model 3 + equal intercepts on MLT, NDW, ORE, PHE	84	139.17^***	.96	.94	.06 (.05–.08)	.08	7.73	4
Grade 7
Model 1	Baseline model	77	99.83^*	.98	.97	.04 (.01–.06)	.05
Model 2 (compared to Model 1)	Model with equal loadings	81	101.57	.98	.97	.04 (.00–.06)	.05	2.86	4
Model 3 (compared to Model 2)	Model 3 + equal intercepts	89	131.66^**	.96	.95	.05 (.03–.07)	.05	22.29^**	8
Model 4 (compared to Model 3)	Model 3 + equal intercepts except order and TNW	87	106.92	.98	.98	.04 (.01–.06)	.05	6.23	6

CFI Comparative Fit Index, TLI Tucker Lewis coefficient, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, SRMR standardized root mean squared residual, TNW total number of words, MLT mean length of T-units, NDW number of different words, ORE number of orthographical errors, PHE number of phonological errors

p < .05;

^**

p < .01;

^***

p < .001