Table III.

Comparison of One-to Six-Profile Solutions of Latent Profiles of HIV-Related Behavioral Protective and Risk Factors for Young Black Men Who Have Sex with Men (N = 1,808)

Index	1 Profile	2 Profiles	3 Profiles	4 Profiles	5 Profiles	6 Profiles
AIC	66,010.84	63,572.34 ( =2,438.50)	62,959.22 ( =613.12)	62,583.14 ( =376.08)	62,270.80 ( =312.34)	62,053.37 ( =217.43)
BIC	66,076.84	63,676.84 ( =2,400.00)	63,102.22 ( =574.62)	62,764.64 ( =337.58)	62,490.80 ( =273.84)	62,311.87 ( =178.93)
Adjusted BIC	66,038.71	63,616.48 ( =2,422.23)	63,019.62 ( =596.86)	62,659.80 ( =359.82)	62,363.72 ( =296.08)	62,162.55 ( =201.17)
Entropy	N/A	0.863	0.882	0.821	0.836	0.845
Lo, Mendell, Rubin test (p)	N/A	2406.65, p<0.001	615.40, p=0.004	382.08, p=0.003	320.24, p=0.116	227.105, p=0.122
Vuong, Lo, Mendell, Rubin test (p)	N/A	2452.50, p<0.001	627.12, p=0.003	390.08, p=0.003	326.34, p=0.111	231.43, p=0.118
n for each profile (Pi) in each solution model	P = 1,808	P1 = 1,264 P2 = 544	P1 = 574 P2 = 1,150 P3 = 84	P1 = 332 P2 = 488 P3 = 88 P4 = 900	P1 = 95 P2 = 851 P3=71 P4 = 439 P5 = 352	P1 = 87 P2 = 766 P3 = 421 P4 = 420 P5 = 78 P6 = 36

Notes. A four-profile solution was selected as the best fitting, most parsimonious solution.