Table 3.
Invariance Model Fit Statistics and Conclusions for Female and Male Nursing Students Compared With Non-Nursing Students.
| Gender | χ2 | df | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | 90% CI RMSEA | SRMR | Δχ2 | Δdf | Bootstrap results | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Configural invariance | |||||||||||
| Female | 12430.2*** | 582 | .918 | .908 | .057 | (.056, .058) | .045 | — | — | — | Invariance supported |
| Male | 5352.75*** | 582 | .923 | .914 | .054 | (.053, .056) | .043 | — | — | — | Invariance supported |
| Metric invariance | |||||||||||
| Female | 12456.82*** | 603 | .918 | .911 | .056 | (.055, .057) | .046 | 72*** | 21 | All factor loadings were statistically similar despite the significant chi-square difference | Metric invariance supported |
| Male | 5329.23*** | 603 | .923 | .918 | .053 | (.052, .054) | .043 | 9.77ns | 21 | All factor loadings were statistically similar, supporting the nonsignificant chi-square difference | Metric invariance supported |
| Scalar invariance | |||||||||||
| Female | 12663.92*** | 627 | .916 | .914 | .055 | (.054, .056) | .047 | 134.64*** | 24 | Nursing students’ intercepts were significantly different than non-nursing students’ intercepts | scalar Invariance failed |
| Male | 5389.04*** | 627 | .923 | .912 | .052 | (.051, .054) | .043 | 32.15ns | 264 | Nursing students’ intercepts were not significantly different than non-nursing students’ intercepts | Scalar invariance supported |
Note. χ2 = scaled chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; Δ = change.
***
p < .001, ns = nonsignificant.