Table 3.
Summary of fit indices from comparative factor analysis (CFA) and invariance analyses between groups for the SSRPH.
| Model-SSRPH | χ2 (df) | CFI | RMSEA [90% CI] | SRMR | ΔCFI | Δχ2 (df) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single group CFA - original one factor model | ||||||
| German students | 17.726 (5) | 0.982 | 0.078 [0.041, 0.119] | 0.026 | ||
| Chinese students | 20.445 (5) | 0.964 | 0.086 [0.050, 0.127] | 0.029 | ||
| Multiple group CFA models | ||||||
| Model A: Configural invariance | 38.171 (10) | 0.975 | 0.082 [0.056, 0.111] | 0.028 | ||
| Model B: Metric invariance | 53.112 (15) | 0.967 | 0.078 [0.056, 0.102] | 0.061 | 0.008 | 14.941 (5) |
| Model C: Scalar invariance | 274.232 (19) | 0.777 | 0.180 [0.161, 0.199] | 0.148 | 0.190 | 221.12 (4) |
| τ1 free | 119.367 (18) | 0.911 | 0.117 [0.097, 0.137] | 0.085 | 0.056 | 66.255 (3) |
| τ1, τ3 free | 69.321 (17) | 0.954 | 0.086 [0.066, 0.108] | 0.066 | 0.013 | 16.209 (2) |
| τ1, τ3, τ5 free | 53.243 (16) | 0.967 | 0.075 [0.053, 0.098] | 0.062 | 0.000 | 0.131 (1) |
SSRPH, Social-Stigma Scale for Receiving Psychological Help; τ1, ‘Seeing a psychologist for emotional or interpersonal problems carries social stigma’; τ3, ‘People will see a person in a less favorable way if they come to know that he/she has seen a psychologist’; τ5, ‘People tend to like those who are receiving professional psychological help less’. All χ2 tests and Δχ2 were significant, p < 0.001.