. 2020 Mar 11;35(11):3159–3165. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-05727-z

Table 3.

Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models

Scale	Items	Sample	Chi square	Degrees of freedom	Comparative fit index	Root mean square error of approximation	Sample size
Commitment	2, 4, 7, 12	1A	17.267	2	0.976	0.122	515
Commitment	2, 4, 7, 12	2A	106.469	2	0.993	0.113	4055
Informed choice	1, 6, 8, 10	1B	7.608	2	0.996	0.074	515
	1, 6, 8, 10	2B	77.496	2	0.997	0.097	4052
	6, 8, 10⁺	1C	76.709	1	0.797	0.384	514
	6, 8, 10⁺	2C	117.414	1	0.979	0.170	4051
Navigation	3, 5, 9, 11	1D	1.189	2	1.000	0.000	515
	3, 5, 9, 11	2D	25.680	2	0.995	0.054	4055
	1, 3, 5, 9, 11⁺⁺	1E	7.506	5	0.992	0.031	515
	1, 3, 5, 9, 11⁺⁺	2E	94.068	5	0.989	0.066	4055
Three factors	A, B, D	1	349.566	51	0.885	0.107	515
Three factors	A, B, D	2	4038.075	51	0.914	0.139	4056
Three factors	A, C, E	1	151.122	51	0.961	0.062	515
Three factors	A, C, E	2	2845.918	51	0.940	0.116	4056

Sample 1 is prediabetes (n =) and sample 2 is https://altarum.org/publications/right-place-right-time

⁺Variant of scale based on exploratory factor analysis. All other models were categorical. For this model, items were treated as continuous because the categorical model was just identified (0 degrees of freedom)

⁺⁺Variant of scale based on exploratory factor analysis