Table 2.

Candidate RSA models and their goodness-of-fit indicators.

Model	k	AICc	ΔAICc	Model weight	Evidence ratio	CFI	R2	p model	R2adj
Model 1: Impact of least∗most attached student–teacher relationship closeness on burnout
Depersonalization
SRR	5	707.50	–	0.49	–	1.00	0.175	<0.002	0.143
SRSQD	6	709.13	1.63	0.22	2.26	1.00	0.159	<0.003	0.127
Emotional exhaustion
Full	7	770.29	–	0.44	–	1.00	0.176	0.009	0.122
SRRR	6	770.50	0.20	0.39	1.11	0.86	0.151	0.011	0.107
Model 2: Impact of attachment security∗most attached student-teacher relationship closeness on burnout
Depersonalization
SSQD	4	527.59	–	0.26	–	0.98	0.159	<0.001	0.138
SRR	5	527.82	0.23	0.23	1.12	1.00	0.178	0.001	0.147
SQD	3	528.62	1.03	0.15	1.68	0.81	0.126	<0.001	0.116
SRSQD	5	529.22	1.63	0.11	2.26	0.94	0.164	0.002	0.132
SRRR	6	529.50	1.91	0.10	2.60	1.00	0.183	0.003	0.141
RR	4	529.56	1.97	0.10	2.67	0.82	0.139	0.003	0.117
Emotional exhaustion
SQD	3	594.34	–	0.37	–	1.00	0.046	0.051	0.034
RR	4	595.62	1.28	0.20	1.89	1	0.055	0.102	0.031
Null	2	596.18	1.85	0.15	2.52	0	0.0	0.146	0.0

Candidate models with ΔAICc < 2 compared to best model are depicted, selected models printed in bold, k = number of parameters, AICc, corrected Akaike information criterion; Evidence ratio, ratio of model weights of the best model compared to each of the other models; CFI, comparative fit index; R², variance explained by the model; R²adj., adjusted; SRRR, shifted and rotated rising ridge model; SRR, shifted rising ridge model; RR, rising ridge model; SRSQD, shifted and rotated rising ridge model; SSQD, shifted squared difference model; SQD, squared difference model, Full, full model, Null, null model.