Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Learn Disabil. 2021 Jan 14;54(6):466–483. doi: 10.1177/0022219420982981

Table 4.

Comparison of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models

Model X2(df),
p-value 		CFI RMSEA
(90% CI) 		SRMR BIC AIC
1.Six factors (Table 1) Not positive definite: correlation between basic reading and basic writing >1.
2. Five factors (move WRAT-R Spelling to Basic Reading, drop Handwriting Copy) (Figure 1) X2(125) = 401.08,
p<.001		 .96 .057
(.051-.063)		 .039 64800.52 64510.54
3. Four factors (Basic Reading, Complex Reading, Math, Complex Writing) (Supplementary Figure 1) X2(129) = 423.82,
p<.001		 .96 .058
(.052-.064)		 .042 64797.14 64525.28
4. Bifactor with four domain-specific factors (based on Model 3) (Figure 2) X2(117) = 382.22,
p<.001		 .96 .057
(.051-.064)		 .040 64833.90 64507.68
5. Bifactor with writing-specific factor removed (Supplementary Figure 2) X2(121) = 407.05,
p<.001		 .96 .059
(.052-.065)		 .041 64832.61 64524.51
6. Second-order with four first-order factors (based on Model 3) (Supplementary Figure 4 X2(131) = 436.31,
p<.001		 .96 .058
(.052-.064)		 .044 64796.56 64533.77