Table 5.
The Comparison of Configural, Metric, and Scalar Invariance Models by Gender and Age.
| Goodness-of-fit | Model comparison | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBχ2(df) | p | RMSEA | 90% CI | CFI | SRMR | Ref. model | ΔSBχ2(df) | p | ΔRMSEA | ΔCFI | ΔSRMR | |
| Gender | ||||||||||||
| M1g: Configural | 24.230(4) | .000 | .045 | [.029, .063] | .997 | .010 | ||||||
| M2g: Metric | 29.859(7) | .000 | .036 | [.023, .050] | .996 | .018 | M1g | 5.739(3) | .125 | −.009 | −.001 | .008 |
| M3g: Scalar | 35.852(10) | .000 | .032 | [.021, .044] | .996 | .017 | M2g | 5.324(3) | .150 | −.004 | .000 | −.001 |
| Gender: Monte Carlo simulation | ||||||||||||
| M1gMC: Configural | 12.562(4) | — | .047 | — | .996 | .012 | ||||||
| M2gMC: Metric | 17.237(7) | — | .039 | — | .996 | .026 | M1gMC | — | — | −.008 | .000 | .014 |
| M3gMC: Scalar | 22.041(10) | — | .035 | — | .995 | .024 | M2gMC | — | — | −.004 | −.001 | −.002 |
| Age | ||||||||||||
| M1a: Configural | 29.702(8) | .000 | .047 | [.029, .065] | .997 | .011 | ||||||
| M2a: Metric | 51.331(17) | .000 | .040 | [.028, .053] | .995 | .031 | M1a | 21.487(9) | .011 | −.007 | −.002 | .020 |
| M3a: Scalar | 96.905(26) | .000 | .047 | [.037, .057] | .989 | .033 | M2a | 46.444(9) | <.001 | .007 | −.006 | .002 |
Note. SBχ2 = Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square test statistic; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.