Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Sep 12.
Published in final edited form as: Addict Behav. 2015 Mar 12;46:113–120. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.03.004

Table 3.

Overall Fit of Individual Confirmatory Factory Analysis (CFA) Models including Comparison of Sequential CFAs using χ2 Difference Tests

Models χ2 (df) χ2 Difference CFI RMSEA SRMR
Motivation to Change
Model 1: Configural Invariance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Model 2: M1+Factor Loading Invariance 1.53 (3) N/A 1.00 .00 (.00–.108) .050
Model 3: M2+Item Intercept Invariance 13.93 (6) 2 vs. 3: Δχ2 (3) = 12.4, p < .01 1.00 .00 (.00–.120) .046
Model 4: M2+Partial Item Intercept Invariance 5.80 (5) 2 vs. 4: Δχ2 (2) = 4.27, p =.12 1.00 .00 (.00–.109) .049
Self-Efficacy
Model 1: Configural Invariance 3.34 (6) N/A 1.00 .00 (.00–.066) .010
Model 2: M1+Factor Loading Invariance 13.30 (11) 1 vs. 2: Δχ2 (5) = 9.96, p = .08 .998 .034 (.00–.088) .060
Model 3: M2+Item Intercept Invariance 29.93 (16) 2 vs. 3: Δχ2 (5) = 16.63, p = .01 .998 .038 (.00–.091) .060
Model 4: M2+Partial Item Intercept Invariance 14.19 (14) 2 vs. 4: Δχ2 (3) = .89, p =.83 .998 .034 (.00–.088) .060
Peer Norms
Model 1: Configural Invariance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Model 2: M1+Factor Loading Invariance 2.51 (3) N/A 1.00 .00 (.00–.116) .085
Model 3: M2+Item Intercept Invariance 6.30 (6) 2 vs. 3: Δχ2 (3) = 3.79, p = .29 1.00 .00 (.00–.117) .089
Problem Drinking
Model 1: Configural Invariance .48 (2) N/A 1.00 .00 (.00–.10) .006
Model 2: M1+Factor Loading Invariance 3.23 (3) 1 vs. 2: Δχ2 (1) = 2.75, p = .10 .999 .02 (.00–.13) .102
Model 3: M2+Item Intercept Invariance 4.61 (6) 2 vs. 3: Δχ2 (3) = 1.38, p = .71 .999 .02 (.00–.13) .103