Table 1.
Fatigue | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GMM | LL | AIC | BIC | Entropy | BLRT | VLMR |
1-Classa | −5068.45 | 10168.90 | 10232.65 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
2-Classb | −5035.46 | 10106.93 | 10178.64 | 0.61 | 68.73* | 68.73** |
3-Class | −5026.22 | 10096.44 | 10184.09 | 0.71 | 18.48ns | 18.48ns |
Energy | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GMM | LL | AIC | BIC | Entropy | BLRT | VLMR |
1-Classa | −5454.43 | 10930.87 | 10974.69 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
2-Classb | −5430.78 | 10893.56 | 10957.30 | 0.53 | 47.31* | 47.31ns |
3-Class | −5422.49 | 10886.98 | 10970.64 | 0.53 | 16.58ns | 16.58* |
p < .05;
p < .01
Latent growth curve with linear and quadratic components; Chi2=34.60, 19 df, p < .02, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .045
2-class model was selected. The BIC was smaller than for the 1-class and 3-class models, and the BLRT indicated that the 2-class solution fit the data better than the 1-class solution.
p< .05
Latent growth curve with linear and quadratic components; Chi2 =50.99, 24 df, p = .001, CFI = .964, RMSEA = .053
2-class model was selected. The BIC was smaller than for the 1-class and 3-class models, and the BLRT indicated that the 2-class solution fit the data better than the 1-class solution.
Abbreviations: AIC = Akaike Information Criterion, BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion, BLRT = parametric bootstrapped likelihood ratio test for K-1 (H0) vs K classes, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, GMM = growth mixture model, LL = loglikelihood, ns = not significant, RMSEA = Root Mean Squared Error of Approximattion, VLMR = Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test for K-1 (H0) vs K classes