Table 2.
Confirmatory factor analysis for discriminant validity.
| Model | χ2(df) | CFI | TLI | RMSEA [90% CI] |
SRMR | Δχ2 (Δdf)a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Four-factor model (FB, POS, SOB and CON) | 70.44(48) | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.04[0.02, 0.06] | 0.02 | - |
| Three-factor model (FB and POS were combined) | 726.68(51) | 0.76 | 0.69 | 0.20[0.19, 0.21] | 0.13 | 656.24(3)*** |
| Three-factor model (FB and SOB were combined) | 485.94(51) | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.16[0.15, 0.17] | 0.10 | 415.5(3)*** |
| Three-factor model (FB and CON were combined) | 750.13(51) | 0.75 | 0.68 | 0.20[0.19, 0.22] | 0.15 | 679.69(3)*** |
| Three-factor model (POS and SOB were combined) | 501.01(51) | 0.84 | 0.80 | 0.16[0.15, 0.18] | 0.11 | 430.57(3)*** |
| Three-factor model (POS and CON were combined) | 686.56(51) | 0.78 | 0.71 | 0.20[0.18, 0.21] | 0.13 | 616.12(3)*** |
| Three-factor model (SOB and CON were combined) | 734.93(51) | 0.76 | 0.69 | 0.20[0.19, 0.22] | 0.22 | 664.49(3)*** |
N = 329. aThe chi-square difference for each model reflects its deviation from the four-factor model. FB, Feedback quality; POS, perceived organizational support; SOB, sense of belongingness; CON, conscientiousness. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001.