Table 2.
Fit statistics for the Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA), Bi-factor Item Analyses (Bi-Factor), Item, and Response Modeling Analyses (IRM) for the three domains of food parenting practices
| AUTONOMY PROMOTION FOOD PARENTING DOMAIN | |||||
| CFA / Bi-Factor | χ2 | RMSEA [90% CI] | CFI | WRMR | |
| CFA – Hypothesized 3-factor model | x2(df = 206) = 2294, p < .05 | .113 [.111–.117] | .88 | 2.59 | Poor fit |
| CFA – Revised 3-factor model | x2(df = 132) = 782, p < .05 | .079 [.073–.084] | .95 | 1.68 | Adequate fit |
| Bi-Factor: Autonomy support | x2(df = 117) = 658 p < .05 | .076[.071–.082] | .96 | 1.32 | Adequate fit |
| IRM | M2 | RMSEA [90% CI] | CFI | SRMR | LD / DRF |
| IRM: Autonomy support | M2(df = 35) = 118 p < .05 | .063 [.051–.076] | .92 | .07 |
Borderline LD No DRF |
| IRM: Child involvement | Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10 | No LD / No DRF | |||
| CONTROL FOOD PARENTING DOMAIN | |||||
| CFA / Bi-Factor | χ2 | RMSEA [90% CI] | CFI | WRMR | |
| CFA – Hypothesized 5-Factor Model | x2(df = 619) = 5893, p < .05 | .103 [.101–.106] | .89 | 2.88 | Poor fit |
| CFA – Revised 5-Factor Model | x2(df = 424) = 2082, p < .05 | .070 [.067–.073] | .96 | 1.70 | Adequate fit |
| Bi-Factor: Coercive control | x2(df = 403) = 2514, p < .05 | .081 [.078–.084]; | .95 | 1.89 | Adequate fit |
| IRM | M2 | RMSEA [90% CI] | CFI | SRMR | LD / DRF |
| IRM: Coercive control | M2(df = 161) = 910, p < .05 | .076 [.071–.081] | .96 | .05 | No LD /No DRF |
| IRM: Restrict for weight | Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10 | 1 LD / No DRF | |||
| STRUCTURE FOOD PARENTING DOMAIN | |||||
| CFA / Bi-Factor | χ2 | RMSEA [90% CI] | CFI | WRMR | |
| CFA – Hypothesized 9-factor model | x2(df = 2309) = 14,889, p < .05 | .083 ([.081–.084] | .61 | 3.30 | Poor fit |
| CFA – Revised 9-factor model | x2(df = 743) = 2428, p < .05 | .053 [.051–.056] | .91 | 1.67 | Adequate fit |
| Bi-Factor: Nondirective support | x2(df = 12) = 56, p < .05 | .079 [.059–.100] | .99 | 0.61 | Adequate fit |
| Bi-Factor: Provide healthy eating opportunities | x2(df = 18) = 47, p < .05 | .045 [.030–.061] | .99 | 0.56 | Adequate fit |
| IRM | M2 | RMSEA [90% CI] | CFI | SRMR | LD / DRF |
| IRM Nondirective support | Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10 |
Borderline LD No DRF |
|||
| IRM Provide healthy eating opportunities | Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10 |
No LD 1 DRF by ethnicity |
|||
| IRM Rules and limits | Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10 | No LD / No DRF | |||
| IRM Redirection | Too few items for IRM and DRF analyses | ||||
| IRM Meal routines | Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10 | No LD / No DRF | |||
| IRM Covert control | Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10 | 1 LD / No DRF | |||
| IRM Accommodating the child | Fit indices not computed when items are less than 10 | No LD / No DRF | |||
χ2 / M2 = Chi-square; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; 90% CI: 90% Confidence Interval, where upper 90%CI less than .10 is indicative of a good fit; CFI = Comparative Fit Index, where values between .90 to 95 are indicated of a good fit; WRMR = Weighted Room Mean Residual, where values less than 2.0 are indicate of a good fit. SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Residual, where values less than .08 are indicative of a good fit; LD = Local Dependence; DRF: Differential Response Functioning