Table 8.

Summary of fit statistics for tests of gender invariance—benefits.

Model	Model Comparison	χ2	df	Δχ2	Δdf	Statistical Significance	CFI	ΔCFI
M1: Configural model (no equality constraints—19 items)	-	540.040	292				0.932	-
M2: All item factor loadings constrained a	2 vs. 1	571.204	311	31.164	19	p < 0.05	0.929	0.003
M3: Items for LE constrained	3 vs. 1	546.096	297	6.056	5	NS	0.932	0.000
M4: Items for LE and PP constrained	4 vs. 1	548.363	303	8.323	11	NS	0.933	0.001
M5: Items for LE, PP, and PO constrained	5 vs. 1	551.636	307	11.596	15	NS	0.933	0.001
M6: Items for LE, PP, PO, and SI constrained (item 1 freely estimated)	6 vs. 1	562.899	310	22.859	18	NS	0.931	0.001
M7: Factor loadings and item variances constrained	7 vs. 1	609.870	329	69.830	37	p < 0.01	0.923	0.009
M8: Factor loadings, item variances, and covariances constrained	8 vs. 1	625.807	335	85.767	43	p < 0.001	0.920	0.012

Note. ^a Kline (2005) proposed that items which are fixed to 1.0 cannot be examined for invariance. Therefore, these items were freed and the latent parent variables were fixed to 1.0. LE = life enhancement; PP = physical performance; PO = psychological outlook; SI = social interaction; NS = not significant. Item 1, “I enjoy exercise”, of the psychological outlook factor had to be estimated freely.