The final model
provided adequate fit to the data, χ 2 (19) = 25.89 p > 0.05, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.04.
First, we reported poor model fit for the alternative 3 - factor configuration; alternative validation studies observed
adequate fit for both configurations using school - aged4 and preschool - aged16 populations.
Although the full and partial mediating role of life satisfaction (Model 1 and Model 2) was not supported by the present findings, this is not to say that the mediating role of life satisfaction should be denied — these models still
showed adequate fit indices, but both models were slightly poorer when compared with Model 6.
However, a confirmatory factor analysis was still conducted in Mplus Version 6.12.12 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010), and results
indicated adequate fit, RMSEA =.06, CFI =.94, and SRMR =.08.
What is an «
adequate fit,» and what are its criteria?
«We use that piggyback approach when the patient needs the hard lens for the optical correction, but we are unable to achieve
an adequate fit and / or comfort with just the rigid lens.
Overall, the fit indices indicate that the model displayed
an adequate fit for the sample (Bentler, 1990).
The results of the SEM indicated
an adequate fit with the data, χ2 (30, N = 74) = 50.99, p =.010, χ2 / df ratio = 1.70, IFI =.93, CFI =.93.
The 5 - factor model established for the school - age SDQ provided
an adequate fit to preschool SDQ data.
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.
The two - factor model was
an adequate fit to the data but the bifactor model was a significant improvement in model fit compared to the two - factor model.