Table 2.
Model comparisons.
| Model | χ2 (df)/p | CFIe | TLIe | SRMRe | RMSEAe | 90% CI for RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entire sample | ||||||
| M1a | 91.77 (65)/0.016 | 0.994 | 0.993 | 0.055 | 0.029 | 0.013, 0.042 |
| M2b | 82.97 (64)/0.056 | 0.996 | 0.995 | 0.052 | 0.024 | 0.000, 0.038 |
| M3c | 82.49 (63)/0.050 | 0.995 | 0.994 | 0.052 | 0.025 | 0.000, 0.039 |
| M4d | 25.40 (51)/0.999 | 1.000 | 1.009 | 0.029 | 0.000 | 0.000, 0.000 |
| Sample aged over 70 years | ||||||
| M1a | 71.34 (65)/0.275 | 0.997 | 0.997 | 0.060 | 0.018 | 0.000, 0.041 |
| M2b | 67.26 (64)/0.366 | 0.999 | 0.998 | 0.059 | 0.013 | 0.000, 0.038 |
| M3c | 65.14 (63)/0.402 | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.058 | 0.011 | 0.000, 0.037 |
| M4d | 25.28 (51)/0.999 | 1.000 | 1.016 | 0.035 | 0.000 | 0.000, 0.000 |
a
Model 1 is a one-factor model that all items loaded on the same construct (QoL).
b
Model 2 is a two-factor model proposed by Santos et al. (16): items Q1–Q8 in the factor 1; items Q9–Q13 in the factor 2.
c
Model 3 is a two-factor model suggested by Caballero et al. (15): items Q1–Q8 in the factor 1; items Q1, Q9–Q13 in the factor 2.
d
Model 4 is a bifactor model proposed by Santos et al. (16): items Q1–Q8 in the factor 1; items Q9–Q13 in the factor 2; all the items embedded in an additional construct of QoL.
e
CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation.