Table 1.
χ2 | df | RMSEA | Cfit of RMSEA | CFI | TLI | Δχ2 | Δdf | ΔRMSEA | ΔCFI | ΔTLI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
General model fit of the measurement models | |||||||||||
Model 1: One-factor model (CFA) | 1360.98 | 77 | .103 | <.001 | .881 | .859 | |||||
Model 2: Two-factor model (CFA) | 1010.80 | 76 | .089 | <.001 | .913 | .896 | |||||
Model 3: Three-factor model (CFA) | 532.12 | 74 | .063 | <.001 | .957 | .948 | |||||
Model 4: Three-factor model (ESEM) | 318.51 | 52 | .057 | .023 | .975 | .957 | |||||
Model 5: Bifactor model (CFA) | 336.07 | 63 | .053 | .208 | .975 | .963 | |||||
Model 6: Bifactor model (ESEM) | 224.07 | 41 | .053 | .196 | .983 | .962 | |||||
Comparison of the measurement models | |||||||||||
Model 3 versus Model 5 | 228.61 | 11 | .010 | .018 | .015 | ||||||
Model 4 versus Model 6 | 119.25 | 11 | .004 | .008 | .005 | ||||||
Model 3 versus Model 4 | 265.53 | 22 | .006 | .018 | .009 | ||||||
Model 5 versus Model 6 | 161.87 | 22 | .000 | .008 | - .001 | ||||||
Model fit in each group separately (Model 5: Bifactor model, CFA) | |||||||||||
Boys | 197.70 | 63 | .053 | .272 | .971 | .958 | |||||
Girls | 174.13 | 63 | .047 | .715 | .983 | .975 | |||||
Measurement invariance testing (Model 5: Bifactor model, CFA) | |||||||||||
Configural invariance | 370.85 | 126 | .050 | .506 | .978 | .968 | |||||
Metric invariance | 388.20 | 150 | .045 | .928 | .978 | .974 | |||||
Scalar invariance | 521.77 | 202 | .045 | .958 | .971 | .974 | |||||
Configural versus metric invariance | 58.29 | 24 | .005 | .000 | .006 | ||||||
Metric versus scalar invariance | 200.92 | 52 | .000 | .007 | .000 |
χ2 Chi Square test statistics, RMSEA Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation, Cfit of RMSEA Closeness of fit test related to RMSEA, CFI Comparative Fit Index, TLI Tucker-Lewis Index, SRMR Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; Δχ2 Chi Square difference test. Chi Square test statistics and Chi Square difference test statistics are significant at least p < .05 level