Table 3. Model Fit Values on Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for Different Models of Brief COPE in Heart Failure Population. Calculated With M-plus.

	χ2	df	CFIb	RMSEAc	90% CId	SRMRe	Omitted subscales
Two-factor model, Bean et al [32]	279.78*	76	0.676	0.121	0.106 - 0.136	0.103	None
Two-factor model, Eisenberg et al [33]	224.59*	53	0.703	0.133	0.115 - 0.151	0.099	Humor, Religion
Three-factor model Paukert et al [34]	275.49*	63	0.643	0.136	0.120 - 0.152	0.114	Humor
Four-factor model, Perez-Garcia et al [35]	64.02*	17	0.878	0.123	0.092 - 0.156	0.070	Denial, humor, religion, self-distraction, substance use, venting
Four-factor model Carver et al (from COPE) [25]	53.18*	21	0.922	0.092	0.061 - 0.122	0.058	Humor, religion, self-blame, self-distraction, substance use
Four-factor model Nahlen and Saboonchi [21]	91.67*	49	0.911	0.069	0.049 - 0.091	0.063	Self-blame, self-distraction
Modified four-factor model Nahlen and Saboonchia [21]	70.43*	47	0.951	0.052	0.024 - 0.076	0.060	Self-blame, self-distraction

^aError variance for planning is correlated with the error variance for instrumental support and emotional support. *P < 0.001. ^bCFI: Comparative Fit Index. ^cRMSEA: Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation. ^dCI: Confidence Interval. ^eSRMR: Standardized Root Mean square Residual.