Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Occup Health Psychol. 2015 Jan 19;20(3):273–288. doi: 10.1037/a0038700

Table 3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model Fit for the 3D-WFI (Study 2).

χ2 df Δχ2 Δdf p CFI TLI RMSEA (90% CI) SRMR
Model 1: One factor 5,892.49 135 <.001 .62 .57 .131 (.128, .134) .12
Model 2: Two factors (Physical vs. Psychological Fatigue) 3,639.27 134 291.95 1 <.001 .77 .74 .103 (.100, .106) .08
Model 3a: Three factors 963.68 132 294.19 2 <.001 .95 .94 .050 (.047, .053) .04
Model 3b: Three factors with design-based correlated errors 687.54 114 289.91 18 <.001 .96 .95 .045 (.042, .048) .03

Note: N = 2,477. See text regarding correlated measurement errors. Two and Three factor models allowed the factors to correlate. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual. Δχ2= Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square difference test for robust maximum likelihood estimation each model to the prior model.