Table 4.
Comparison of the approach and avoidance multiple mediator models.
| Model | χ2 (N = 388) | df | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | 90% CI RMSEA | SRMR | AIC | SABIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approach goals | |||||||||
| Multiple mediator model (without direct association) | 563.80∗ | 288 | 0.946 | 0.939 | 0.050 | 0.044–0.056 | 0.044 | 26317.90 | 26388.04 |
| Multiple mediator model (with direct association) | 548.75∗ | 285 | 0.948 | 0.941 | 0.049 | 0.043–0.055 | 0.041 | 26307.38 | 26379.88 |
| Avoidance goals | |||||||||
| Multiple mediator model (without direct association) | 579.41∗ | 288 | 0.939 | 0.931 | 0.051 | 0.045–0.057 | 0.047 | 28289.87 | 28360.01 |
| Multiple mediator model (with direct association) | 572.83∗ | 285 | 0.939 | 0.931 | 0.051 | 0.045–0.057 | 0.046 | 28289.08 | 28361.59 |
CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; AIC, Akaike information criterion; SABIC, sample-size adjusted Bayesian information criterion; MLR, maximum likelihood robust estimation in Mplus was used in all analyses; ∗p < 0.001.