Table 1. Fit information of latent profile analysis (LPA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and factor mixture modeling (FMM).
| Percentage of Respondents in Each Profile | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AIC | BIC | SABIC | Entropy | Profile 1 | Profile 2 | Profile 3 | Profile 4 | Profile 5 | Profile 6 | ||
| LPA | |||||||||||
| 2-profile | 5050.08 | 5115.14 | 5073.85 | .58 | 53.72% | 46.28% | |||||
| 3-profile | 4964.46 | 5064.56 | 5001.03 | .65 | 65.43% | 13.98% | 20.60% | ||||
| 4-profile | 4927.77 | 5062.90 | 4977.14 | .68 | 11.43% | 2.18% | 49.18% | 37.21% | |||
| 5-profile | inadmissible solutions | ||||||||||
| 6-profile | inadmissible solutions | ||||||||||
| CFA | 4974.60 | 5019.64 | 4991.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| FMM | |||||||||||
| 2-profile | inadmissible solutions | ||||||||||
| 3-profile | inadmissible solutions | ||||||||||
| 4-profile | inadmissible solutions | ||||||||||
Note. We attempted all four types of FMM models, as described in Clark et al. [43], for each profile analysis, but all solutions were not admissible.
N = 1,102.