Table 2.
Model (Number of latent classes)* | Loglikelihood | Best H0 replicated (Yes/No) | # of parameters | AIC | BIC | SSABIC | LMR-LRT (p) | Entropy | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | −792.4 | yes | 5 | 1594.7 | 1613.4 | 1597.5 | -- | -- | |
2 | −655.8 | yes | 11 | 1353.5 | 1384.5 | 1359.6 | <.0001 | .87 | |
3 | −627.7 | yes | 17 | 1289.4 | 1352.7 | 1298.8 | <.0001 | .94 | |
4 | −617.6 | yes | 23 | 1281.2 | 1366.9 | 1293.9 | .0012 | .95 |
Note: SSABIC = sample size adjusted BIC; LMR-LRT = Vuong-Lo-Mendal-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test comparing current model with a model with one less latent profile.
Even though the measures of model fit suggest that a 4-class solution was better than a 3-class solution, we selected the 3-class model as our best model because in the 4-class model two of the classes contained less than 10% of the sample, thus making that model a less desirable solution.