Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 11:1–12. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-02957-8

Table 1.

Confirmatory factor analyses of the STDS and MGCFA fit indexes for gender and age

Goodness-of-fit indexes
χ2 (df) χ2/df RMSEA (90% IC) SRMR Δ SRMR TLI CFI Δ CFI
Three-factor model 833.1(73) 11.412 .079 (.074-.084) .054 - .985 .988 -
Gender
  Male (n = 452) 130.206 (73) 1.784 .042 (.03—.054) .054 - .986 .989 -
  Female (n = 1.197) 257.876 (73) 3.533 .046 (.04—.053) .048 - .981 .985 -
Unconstrained model 388.082 (146) 2.658 .045 (.04—.051) .047 - .983 .986 -
Metric invariance 402.393 (158) 2.547 .044 (.038—.049) .047 .000 .984 .986 .000
Scalar invariance 409.682 (169) 2.424 .042 (.037—.047) .048 .001 .985 .986 .000
Residual invariance 421.091 (183) 2.301 .040 (.035—.045) .048 .000 .986 .986 .000
Age
  Young adults (n = 479) 137.11 (73) 1.878 .043 (.032—.054) .054 - .978 .982 -
  Middle-aged adults (n = 1.003) 221.965 (73) 3.041 .045 (.039—.052) .049 - .983 .986 -
  Older adults (n = 157) 55.796 (73) .764 .000 (.000—.013) .067 - 1.012 1.000 -
Unconstrained model 414.872 (219) 1.894 .041 (.035—.047) .049 - .985 .988 -
Metric invariance 48.03 (243) 1.975 .043 (.037—.048) .052 .003 .984 .985 .003
Scalar invariance 604.935 (265) 2.283 .049 (.044—.054) .057 .005 .978 .979 .006
Residual invariance 718.846 (293) 2.453 .052 (.047—.057) .065 .008 .975 .974 .005

STDS Self-reported Text message Dependence Scale; MGCFA Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis; RMSEA Root-mean-square error of approximation; TLI Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR Standardized root-mean-square residual; CFI Comparative fit index. Note: The fit criteria were considered as according to Cheung and Rensvold (2002): comparative fit index (CFI ≥ .95), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI ≥ .95), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ .08), standardized root means square residual (SRMR ≤ .05) and the ratio between the chi-square/degrees of freedom value (χ2/df), with the ideal values being between 2 and 3