Table 2.
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics of the Confirmatory Factor Analytic and Exploratory Structural Equation Models.
| Model | Description | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | 90% CI | SRMR | CM | ΔCFI | ΔTLI | ΔRMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MTurk participants (confirmation sample) | ||||||||||
| A priori CFA | CFA 8-factor Model | .789 | .763 | .069 | [.067, .071] | .076 | — | — | — | — |
| A priori ESEM | ESEM 8-factor model | .956 | .922 | .040 | [.037, .042] | .019 | — | — | — | — |
| Post hoc CFA | CFA 7-factor model | .868 | .848 | .061 | [.059, .064] | .070 | — | — | — | — |
| Post hoc ESEM | ESEM 7-factor model | .963 | .932 | .041 | [.038, .044] | .018 | — | — | — | — |
| ESEM structural model | ESEM | .956 | .926 | .040 | [.037, .042] | .020 | — | — | — | — |
| College student participants (validation sample) | ||||||||||
| A priori CFA | CFA 8-factor Model | .764 | .735 | .067 | [.064, .070] | .072 | — | — | — | — |
| A priori ESEM | ESEM 8-factor model | .951 | .914 | .038 | [.034, .043] | .023 | ||||
| Post hoc CFA | CFA 7-factor model | .856 | .834 | .058 | [.054, .062] | .067 | — | — | — | — |
| Post hoc ESEM | ESEM 7-factor model | .959 | .924 | .039 | [.034, .045] | .022 | — | — | — | — |
| ESEM structural model | ESEM | .960 | .920 | .040 | [.035, .044] | .024 | ||||
| 1. Invariance across genderb | ||||||||||
| 1 Configural invariance | .963 | .934 | .047 | [.044, .050] | .021 | — | — | — | — | |
| 2 Weak invariance | .957 | .941 | .044 | [.041, .047] | .031 | 1-1 | −.006 | .007 | −.003 | |
| 5 Strong invariance | .955 | .942 | .044 | [.041, .047] | .031 | 1-2 | −.002 | .001 | .000 | |
| 7 Strict Invariance | .936 | .921 | .051 | [.049, .054] | .043 | 1-5 | −.019a | −.021a | .007 | |
| 4 Covariance invariance | .952 | .938 | .046 | [.043, .048] | .053 | 1-2 | −.005 | −.003 | .002 | |
| 10 Latent means invariance | .944 | .929 | .049 | [.046, .051] | .055 | 1-5 | −.011a | −.013a | .005 | |
| 2. Invariance across ethnicityb | ||||||||||
| 1 Configural invariance | .950 | .933 | .049 | [.046, .052] | .034 | — | — | — | — | |
| 2 Weak invariance | .955 | .944 | .044 | [.041, .048] | .035 | 2-1 | .005 | .001 | −.005 | |
| 5 Strong invariance | .954 | .946 | .044 | [.041, .047] | .036 | 2-2 | −.001 | .002 | .000 | |
| 7 Strict Invariance | .950 | .946 | .044 | [.041, .047] | .038 | 2-5 | −.004 | .000 | .000 | |
| 4 Covariance invariance | .954 | .946 | .044 | [.041, .047] | .040 | 2-2 | −.001 | .002 | .000 | |
| 10 Latent means invariance | .954 | .946 | .044 | [.041, .047] | .036 | 2-5 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |
| 3. Invariance across college statusb | ||||||||||
| 1 Configural invariance | .963 | .933 | .048 | [.045, .051] | .021 | — | — | — | — | |
| 2 Weak invariance | .960 | .946 | .043 | [.040, .046] | .028 | 3-1 | −.003 | .013 | .005 | |
| 5 Strong invariance | .959 | .947 | .043 | [.040, .045] | .029 | 3-2 | −.001 | .001 | .000 | |
| 7 Strict Invariance | .956 | .946 | .043 | [.040, .046] | .031 | 3-5 | −.003 | −.001 | .000 | |
| 4 Covariance invariance | .960 | .948 | .042 | [.039, .045] | .037 | 3-2 | .000 | .002 | .001 | |
| 10 Latent means invariance | .958 | .946 | .043 | [.040, .046] | .033 | 3-5 | −.001 | .000 | .000 | |
Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analytic model; ESEM = exploratory structural equation model; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; 90% CI = 90% confidence interval of the RMSEA; SRMR = standardized root mean square error of approximation; CM = comparison model; Δ = change.
Indicates that the ΔCFI, ΔTLI, or ΔRMSEA criteria for measurement invariance are not met. Number (1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10) for description on invariance models indicates parameters constrained in the model as outlined by Marsh et al. (2009), 1: no constraints; 2: factor loadings; 4: factor loadings, factor variance–covariance; 5: factor loadings, item intercepts; 7: factor loadings, item intercepts, item uniqueness; 10: factor loadings, item intercepts, factor means.
Indicates MTurk confirmation sample.