Table 2.

Model comparison, fit indices and results of chi-square test for comparisons between the two models

Model	DF	χ2/DF	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	GFI	NFI	IFI	AIC	Model comparisons(χ2,DF)
Unconstraineda	158	3.82	0.052	0.079	0.91	0.93	0.88	0.91	831.5	Assuming to be correct
Measurement weightsb	166	3.71	0.051	0.080	0.91	0.93	0.88	0.91	828.5	12.96, DF = 8
Structural weightsc	183	3.53	0.050	0.083	0.91	0.92	0.87	0.91	823.5	41.94*, DF = 25
Structural covarianced	196	5.30	0.064	0.096	0.83	0.90	0.80	0.83	1190.5	434.9**, DF = 38
Structural residualse	200	5.28	0.064	0.098	0.83	0.89	0.80	0.83	1200.2	452.7**, DF = 42
Measurement residualsf	215	5.10	0.063	0.098	0.82	0.89	0.79	0.82	1209.9	492.5**, DF = 57

Unconstrained model assuming to be correct, other proposed models ^b-f were compared to unconstrained model using chi-square difference test

DF degree of freedom, RMSEA root of mean square error approximation, SRMR standardized root mean square residual, CFI comparative fit index, GFI goodness of fit index, NFI normed fit index, IFI incremental fit index, AIC Akaike information criterion

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.001. ^aAll of the parameters were considered different in men and women, ^bEqual factor loadings for measurement model of social support and quality of life constructs in men and women, ^cEqual factor loadings and regression weights between latent variables in men and women, ^dEqual covariance for latent constructs in men and women, ^eEqual residual variances for latent constructs in men and women ^fAll parameters were considered equal in men and women