. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Apr 1.

Published in final edited form as: Assessment. 2019 Aug 20;28(3):964–976. doi: 10.1177/1073191119869823

Table 2.

Fit Indices of ESEM vs. CFA of Barkley Deficits in Executive Function Scale, CFA in Full Sample All Items vs. Subsets Excluding Items with High Cross-Loadings, and CFA in Invariance Subgroups.

Model	χ²(df)	RMSEA	RMSEA 90% CI	CFI	TLI
ESEM vs. CFA
ESEM (n=656)	6290.700 (3481)*	0.035	[0.034, 0.036]	0.960	0.960
CFA (n=655)	7826.400 (3817)*	0.040	[0.039, 0.041]	0.940	0.940
CFA All Items vs. Subsets
All items	14163.100 (3817)*	0.045	[0.045, 0.046]	0.930	0.920
>.25	8731.580 (2267)*	0.047	[0.046, 0.048]	0.940	0.940
>.30	11322.436 (3070)*	0.045	[0.044, 0.046]	0.930	0.930
>.35	13396.330 (3644)*	0.045	[0.044, 0.046]	0.930	0.930
CFA Group Analyses
Males	6430.100 (3817)*	0.039	[0.037, 0.040]	0.950	0.950
Females	9845.540 (3817) *	0.043	[0.042, 0.044]	0.930	0.930
Younger (≤19)	10359.590 (3817)	0.043	[0.042, 0.044]	0.933	0.932
Older (≥20)	6242.100 (3817)*	0.041	[0.039, 0.042)	0.940	0.939
Low Inattention	7965.630 (3817)*	0.038	[0.036, 0.039]	0.937	0.935
High Inattention	8237.730 (3817)*	0.040	[0.039, 0.041]	0.939	0.938
Low Hyperactivity	8124.530 (3817)*	0.038	[0.036, 0.040]	0.943	0.941
High Hyperactivity	8466.440 (3817)*	0.041	[0.038, 0.044)	0.938	0.935

Note. Estimations based on weighted least square-mean and variance. RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation; CI confidence interval; CFI comparative fit index; TFI Tucker–Lewis Index. ESEM vs. CFA: CFA (confirmatory factor analysis) conducted in the first half of the sample (n=655) and ESEM (exploratory structural equation model) conducted in the second half of the sample (n=656). CFA all items vs. subsets and CFA Group Analyses presented were conducted within the full sample (n=1,311).