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

Published in final edited form as: Psychol Assess. 2015 Mar 16;27(4):1324–1336. doi: 10.1037/pas0000101

Table 3. Fit Statistics for Estimated CFA and MIMIC Models for DPS Items (N = 4,491).

	WLSMVχ²	df	CFI	RMSEA (90% CI)	WRMR
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models
M1: Null model	24821.85	325		.130 [.128, .131]	14.298
M2: One-factor CFA model	2304.38	299	.918	.039 [.037, .040]	3.254
M3: Three-factor CFA model^a	1329.33	296	.958	.028 [.026, .029]	2.370
Multiple indicators multiple causes (MIMIC) models
M4: Baseline three-factor MIMIC model (without DIF)^b	1723.11	365	.942	.029 [.027, .030]	2.520
M5: Final three-factor MIMIC model (with DIF)^c	1285.59	344	.960	.025 [.023, .026]	2.112

Note. All models were adjusted for sample weights and clustering. The estimated tetrachoric correlations among the 26 latent continuous response variables y^* ranged from .18 to .82 according to the three-factor CFA model. WLSMVχ² = robust weighted least squares chi-square test statistic; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation; WRMR = weighted root mean square residual; DIF = differential item functioning; CI = confidence interval.

Model fit and substantive findings were nearly identical when the three-factor CFA model was re-estimated using data from only the female primary caregivers (N = 4,153, WLSMVχ²(296) = 1275.24, CFI = .955, RMSEA = .028, RMSEA 90% CI = .027, .030, WRMR = 2.313) and from only the English-language version (N = 3,400, WLSMVχ²(296) = 1132.53, CFI = .955, RMSEA = .029, RMSEA 90% CI = .027, .031, WRMR = 2.240), respectively.

Model fit and substantive findings were nearly identical when the baseline three-factor MIMIC model was re-estimated using data from only the female primary caregivers (N = 4,153, WLSMVχ²(365) = 1659.56, CFI = .938, RMSEA = .029, RMSEA 90% CI = .028, .031, WRMR = 2.454). Model fit and the vast majority of substantive findings also were closely replicated when this model was re-estimated using data from only the English-language version (N = 3,400, WLSMVχ²(365) = 1418.24, CFI = .942, RMSEA = .029, RMSEA 90% CI = .028, .031, WRMR = 2.315).

Model fit and substantive findings were nearly identical when the final three-factor MIMIC model was re-estimated using data from only the female primary caregivers (N = 4,153, WLSMVχ²(344) = 1244.28, CFI = .957, RMSEA = ..025, RMSEA 90% CI = .024, .027, WRMR = 2.061). Model fit and the vast majority of substantive findings also were closely replicated when this model was re-estimated using data from only the English-language version (N = 3,400, WLSMVχ²(344) = 1130.89, CFI = .957, RMSEA = .026, RMSEA 90% CI = .024, .028, WRMR = 2.015).