Table 2.

Fit indices, entropy, and model comparisons for estimated latent profile analyses models in samples A and B

Model	LL	BIC	SSA-BIC	Entr	LMR	BLRT	nC < 10/5%
Sample A
1 profile	−7493.75	15057.43	15025.67	-	-	-	-
2 profile	−6685.72	13462.34	13421.05	0.75	<.001	<.001	0/0
3 profile	−6303.14	12746.15	12682.62	0.81	>.05	<.001	0/0
4 profile	−5935.00	12058.81	11973.05	0.83	<.001	<.001	0/0
5 profile	−5755.10	11747.97	11639.98	0.85	<.001	<.001	0/0
6 profile	−5592.75	11472.22	11472.223	0.85	<.05	<.001	1/0
7 profile	−5490.52	11316.71	11164.25	0.86	>.05	<.001	2/0
Sample B
1 profile	−3622.88	7283.18	7264.14	-	-	-	-
2 profile	−3290.39	6661.85	6620.58	0.74	<.01	<.001	0/0
3 profile	−3178.18	6481.09	6417.61	0.83	<.01	<.001	0/0
4 profile	−3062.57	6293.52	6207.82	0.79	<.05	<.001	0/0
5 profile	−2936.11	6084.27	5976.35	0.84	<.001	<.001	0/0
6 profile	−2876.71	6009.11	5878.97	0.86	<.05	<.001	0/1
7 profile	−2828.75	5956.86	5804.50	0.84	>.05	<.001	1/1

Note. Boldface rows describe the best fitting model in both samples

LL Log-likelihood, BIC Bayesian Information Criterion, SSA-BIC Sample Size Adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion, LMR p-value for Adjusted Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test, BLRT p-value for bootstrap likelihood ratio test

nC < 10/5% = number of profiles with less than 10 and 5% of the cases respectively