Table 2.
Descriptions | SRMR | CD | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | 90% CI | χ2 (df) | AIC | BIC | Number of Items with Poor Loadingsb |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 factors | .050 | .994 | .838 | .763 | .099 | 0.095, 0.104 | 1454.68 (117)a | 72,316.85 | 72,781.86 | 3c |
4 factors | .033 | .999 | .918 | .860 | .076 | 0.071, 0.081 | 775.69 (100)a | 71,671.86 | 72,222.79 | 0 |
5 factors | .018 | 1.000 | .976 | .952 | .045 | 0.039, 0.051 | 286.64 (86)a | 71,210.81 | 71,832.50 | 1d |
Note. SRMR standardized root mean square, CD coefficient of determination, CFI comparative fit index, TLI Tucker-Lewis index, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, CI Confidence interval for the RMSEA point estimate, χ2 Chi-squared Statistic, df Degrees of freedom, AIC Akaike’s information criterion, BIC Bayesian information criterion
aSignificant at alpha value of 0.05
bFactor loadings less than 0.40 is considered poor
cThe three items with poor loadings were item 1”Terrified”,7”Vomit”,and item 19”Vomit1”
dThe item with poor loading was item 4 “Awarecal”