Table 1.

Fit indices of the measurement models (N = 603).

Models	α	χ2	p	df	χ2/df	CFI	IFI	TLI	RMSEA	90% CI of RMSEA	Factor loading
PD	0.813	3.22	0.20	2	1.61	0.999	0.996	0.996	0.032	[0.00,0.09]	0.60–0.86
CN	0.869	Saturated measurement model									0.75–0.90
CD	0.850	Saturated measurement model									0.75–0.88
TIC	0.678	13.60	0.01	5	2.72	0.979	0.979	0.957	0.053	[0.02,0.09]	0.44–0.67
EIC	0.706	4.54	0.00	2	2.27	0.994	0.994	0.982	0.046	[0.00,0.10]	0.53–0.73
MD	0.736	50.83	0.00	14	3.63	0.938	0.939	0.918	0.066	[0.05,0.09]	0.45–0.65
SP	0.726	2.82	0.24	2	1.41	0.998	0.998	0.994	0.026	[0.00,0.09]	0.54–0.70
DI	0.701	1.23	0.54	2	0.66	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.000	[0.00,0.07]	0.55–0.72

χ², chi-square; df, degrees of freedom; CFI, comparative fit index; IFI, incremental fit index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; PD, CN, and CD denote perceived pros of doping, cons of not doping, and cons of doping, respectively; TIC and EIC denote task-involving climate and ego-involving climate, respectively; MI and SP denote moral disengagement and sportsmanship, respectively; DI represents doping intention.