Skip to main content
. 2018 Jun 14;6:14. doi: 10.1186/s40337-018-0199-x

Table 2.

Goodness of fit indices from 3-, 4-, and 5-factor exploratory structural equation models (ESEM) of the EAT-19 in Sample 1

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”