Table 3.
Goodness-of-fit indices and model comparison.
| First-order model | Second-order model | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample 1: Adult workers (N = 311) | CFI | TLI | NFI | RMSEA | p(∆χ2) | CFI | TLI | NFI | RMSEA | p(∆χ2) |
| Default model | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.06 (0.05, 0.07) | – | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.06 (0.05, 0.07) | – |
| + Configural invariance across genders | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.06 (0.05, 0.07) | 0.105 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.05 (0.04, 0.06) | 0.852 |
| + Weak invariance across genders | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.06 (0.05, 0.07) | 0.226 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.05 (0.04, 0.06) | 0.449 |
| + Strong invariance across genders | – | – | – | – | 0.000 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.05 (0.04, 0.06) | 0.485 |
| + Strict invariance across genders | – | – | – | – | – | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.05 (0.04, 0.06) | 0.263 |
| Sample 2: Police officers (N = 201) | CFI | TLI | NFI | RMSEA | p(∆χ2) | CFI | TLI | NFI | RMSEA | p(∆χ2) |
| Default model | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.05 (0.04, 0.07) | – | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.05 (0.04, 0.06) | – |
| + Configural invariance across genders | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.05 (0.04, 0.06) | 0.438 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.05 (0.03, 0.06) | 0.853 |
| + Weak invariance across genders | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.92 | 0.05 (0.04, 0.06) | 0.190 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.05 (0.03, 0.06) | 0.391 |
| + Strong invariance across genders | – | – | – | – | 0.000 | – | – | – | – | 0.022 |
| + Strict invariance across genders | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
AGFI, adjusted goodness-of-fit index; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker Lewis index; RMR, root mean square residual; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; NFI, Normed Fit Index.