Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: New Dir Child Adolesc Dev. 2019 Jul 1;2019(166):79–110. doi: 10.1002/cad.20303

Table 2.

Global Model Fit Indices

Approaches Chi-Square (df) RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR
Approach 1: Total score matrix 437.161 (24) .10 .95 .90 .06
Approach 2: Within-student matrix 346.517 (24) .09 .96 .92 .05
Approach 3: Between-classroom matrix 95.708 (24) .15 .94 .89 .08
Approach 4: Multilevel-CFA model 494.396 (48) .08 .95 .91 .05 (Within) .12 (Between)
Approach 41: Multilevel-CFA model saturated at the within level. 9.703(24) .04 .99 .97 .003 (Within) .01 (Between)
Approach 4: Multilevel-CFA model saturated at the between level. 423.205(24) .10 .96 .83 .05 (Within) .02 (Between)

Note. Degrees of freedom appear in parentheses. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; and SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

1

The last two models in Table 2 fit Model 4 with a saturated model at the student or classroom level in order to isolate the lack of fit at the alternate level (Ryu & West, 2009). These models and their fit to the data are discussed later in the text.