Confirmatory factor analysis suggested good to
acceptable fit indexes.
Not exact matches
Further, the comparative
fit index (CFI) and the incremental
fit index (IFI) were measured, and values equal to or higher than 0.9 for these
indices indicate an
acceptable fit to the model.
Root mean square error of approximation and other
fit indices indicated psychoFmetric properties for both versions to be
acceptable.
The global
fit indices included: The X2 - degrees of freedom (d. f) ratio < 2.0, RMSEA < 0:06, CFI > 0:90, NFI > 0:90, GFI > 0.85, AGFI > 0.85 indicated an
acceptable fit.
In this SEM model,
fit indices were
acceptable -LRB-(16) = 20.62, P = 0.19, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.05), but no main effects were found between partners» relative autonomous helping motivation and the different ICP outcomes.
Finally, a model (Table 6) with latent and observed variables as shown in Figure 1 emerged with
acceptable level of
fit indices.
Fit indices for model D were poor but were
acceptable for models B and C. Model C was preferred, due to its parsimony.
Given the fact that the
fit indices were
acceptable or near -
acceptable and given the fact that they were very similar to the
fit indices obtained for group A, it can be concluded that model 3 also provided an adequate
fit for group B.
Model
fit for this original conceptualization was highly
acceptable (χ2 = 1.44, p =.32, comparative
fit index [CFI] =.91, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] =.07; all paths significance at p <.05).
This second model provided an
acceptable fit to the data on three out of four
indices: χ (7) 2 = 11.64, p = 0.11, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.07.