Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Adolesc. 2015 Apr 17;41:162–174. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.03.007

Table 2.

Model fit indices.

χ2 df χ2/df p-value RSMEA GFI NNFI CFI IFI
Measurement models
Measurement model A (separate emotion beliefs, emotion suppression) 16.05 12 1.34 .189 .046 .976 .984 .993 .993
Measurement model B (collapsed emotion beliefs, emotion suppression) 53.76 16 3.36 .00001 .122 .919 .888 .936 .937
Measurement model C (omitting emotion suppression) 4.50 5 0.90 .481 .000 .991 1.005 1.000 1.002
Structural models
SEM: model 1: full model (non-constrained, non-mediated) 23.22 15 1.54 .079 .059 .966 .974 .986 .986
SEM: constrained model 2 (self-evaluative vulnerability to brooding path set to 0) 24.48 16 1.53 .079 .058 .963 .975 .986 .986
SEM: constrained model 3 (beliefs to brooding path set to zero) 45.29 17 2.66 .00022 .103 .933 .921 .952 .953

Note: comparison of measurement models A and B: χ2 difference = 37.71 (4 df), p < .00001.

Note: measurement model C includes out of bounds NNFI and IFI fit indices and was consequently rejected.

Note: comparison of SEM models 1 and 2: χ2 difference = 1.26 (1 df), p = 0.262; Comparison of SEM models 2 and 3: χ2 difference = 20.81 (1 df), p < .00001.