Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jan 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Abnorm Psychol. 2016 Nov 3;126(1):76–88. doi: 10.1037/abn0000220

Table 2.

Model Fit Statistics

Model	χ²	df	CFI	RMSEA	Comparison: Δχ²(Δdf)
Total sample (N = 1,400)
Model 1: Unidimensional model	937.41^***	104	.88	.08	Model 1 vs. 2: 164.97^*** (1)
Model 2: Correlated factor model	348.91^***	103	.97	.04	Model 1 vs. 3: 460.75^*** (15)
Model 3: Bifactor model	199.62^***	89	.98	.03	Model 2 vs. 3: 111.02^*** (14)
Female (N = 481)
Model 1: Unidimensional model	379.25^***	104	.91	.08	Model 1 vs. 2: 53.22^*** (1)
Model 2: Correlated factor model	188.83^***	103	.97	.04	Model 1 vs. 3: 156.80^*** (15)
Model 3: Bifactor model	153.01^***	89	.98	.04	Model 2 vs. 3: 36.55^*** (14)
Male (N = 919)
Model 1: Unidimensional model	544.16^***	104	.88	.07	Model 1 vs. 2: 101.44^*** (1)
Model 2: Correlated factor model	251.41^***	103	.96	.04	Model 1 vs. 3: 270.90^*** (15)
Model 3: Bifactor model	133.50^***	89	.99	.02	Model 2 vs. 3: 86.04^*** (14)

Note.

^***

p < .001.