. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Oct 1.

Published in final edited form as: Assessment. 2014 Nov 3;22(5):561–580. doi: 10.1177/1073191114556101

Table 1.

Summary of sample descriptives and model fit statistics reported in previous studies examining ICU factor structure among youth

	N	Country	Sample type	Age range	% female	df	χ²	GFI	AGFI	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR	AIC	CAIC	χ²/df
Essau et al. (2006)	1443	Germany	Com.	13–18	46

1 factor						252	2475.366	.731	.680		.120		2571.366	2831.682
3 factor						249	2213.166	.783	.738		.109		2316.166	2596.808
3 bifactor						228	1824.942	.819	.762		.103		1968.942	2365.143
3 bifactor + MI						203	1034.464	.894	.844		.078		1228.464	1762.235

Kimonis et al. (2008)	248	USA	Foren.	12–20	24

1 factor						252	890.76			.50	.10				3.53
Original 4 factor hierarchical						249	800.13			.57	.10				3.21
3 bifactor						231	502.30			.79	.07				2.17
3 factor hierarchical (deleted 2 and 10)						206	471.25			.79	.07				2.29
3 bifactor (deleted 2 and 10)						187	343.52			.87	.06				1.84

Fanti et al. (2009)	347	Cyprus	Com.	12–18	49

1 factor						252	931.88			.572	.089	.090	20,833.12
3 factor						249	722.77			.702	.075	.082	20,630.01
3 bifactor						228	508.35			.824	.058	.061	20,455.59
3 bifactor + MI						212	372.12			.919	.047	.050	20,401.36

Roose et al. (2010)	455	Belgium	Com.	14–20	44

1 factor youth report							2133.43	.72	.66	.77	.13		2229.49	2475.21	8.47
1 factor parent report							1070.74	.63	.56	.76	.15		1166.74	1360.51	4.25
1 factor teacher report							1297.01	.52	.43	.78	.19		1393.01	1574.81	5.15
1 factor combined report							901.61	.61	.54	.84	.15		997.61	1179.41	3.58
3 factor youth report							998.95	.85	.81	.89	.08		1100.95	1362.09	4.01
3 factor parent report							722.49	.72	.66	.85	.11		824.49	1030.37	2.90
3 factor teacher report							816.34	.64	.56	.86	.14		4000.29	4091.19	3.28
3 factor combined report							574.55	.71	.65	.92	.10		676.55	869.71	2.31
3 bifactor youth report							674.53	.89	.86	.92	.07		818.53	1187.20	2.96
3 bifactor parent report							375.12	.83	.78	.93	.07		519.12	809.78	1.65
3 bifactor teacher report							534.03	.73	.64	.90	.11		678.03	950.73	2.34
3 bifactor combined report							348.31	.80	.74	.96	.07		492.31	765.01	1.53
Feilhauer et al. (2012)	383	Holland	Mixed	8–20	0

1 factor						252	1054.56	.777		.70	.105	.093	1411.140	1648.646	4.18
3 factor						249	846.639	.829		.78	.086	.087	1048.295	1300.644	3.40
3 factor hierarchical						249	846.639	.829		.78	.086	.087	1048.295	1300.644	3.40
3 bifactor						228	706.725	.861		.82	.077	.077	882.459	1238.718	3.09
Houghton et al. (2013)	268	Australia	Com.	7–13	43

3 factor						167	380.09			.85	.07
2 factor (unemotional + callous versus uncaring)						169	417.43			.82	.07
2 factor (callous versus uncaring)						103	280.32			.86	.08
2 factor + MI (callous versus uncaring)						95	221.63			.90	.07
Ezpeleta et al. 2013	620	Spain	Strat.	3–4	50

1 factor						1055	6706.30			.77	.093
3 factor						1041	3670.30			.89	.064
3 bifactor						1004	2864.20			.92	.055
Ciucci et al. 2014	540	Italy	Com.	10–14	53

1 factor						209	836.44	.86	.83	.67	.07	.07	924.44		4.00
3 factor						206	616.93	.89	.87	.78	.06	.06	710.93		2.99
3 bifactor						187	426.52	.93	.91	.87	.05	.05	558.52		2.28
3 factor hierarchical						198	442.06	.93	.91	.87	.05	.05	552.06		2.23
Hawes et al. 2014	250	USA	Clinic	6–12	0

1 factor						252	797.66			.78	.09
3 factor						249	629.352			.84	.08
3 bifactor						228	553.36			.87	.08
Revised 2 factor (callous versus uncaring)						53	100.21			.97	.06
Revised 2 bifactor (similar fit but selected 2 factor as it provided, ‘a more parsimonious model’ (p.7)						43	86.57			.97	.06

Note. Com =community (i.e., normative, healthy, or school-based sample); Foren =forensic; Strat =stratified. Degrees of freedom vary across previous studies depending on item set being used (e.g., 22 items instead of 24 items).