Sentences with phrase «fit index =»

Overall, this model fits the data extremely well (χ2 = 70.4, P <.001; comparative fit index = 0.99, Tucker - Lewis index = 0.96, root mean square error of approximation = 0.04, standardized root mean square residual = 0.02).

Not exact matches

In particular, confirmatory factor analysis indicated satisfactory fit indices (CFI: 0.98, SRMR: 0.05), and internal consistency of the scale (α = 0.87).

The fit indices were satisfying for this model (CMIN = 2.896, CMIN / DF = 1.448, p = 0.235, IFI = 0.998, CFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.023).

The resulting global fit indices X2 = 113.23, p < 0.0005, chi - square - degrees of freedom (d. f.) ratio = 2.45, RMSEA = 0.102, CFI = 0.72, NFI = 0.68, GFI = 0.59, AGFI = 0.57 showed that the one factor solution proposed by the author should be rejected.

Goodness - of - fit indices for the six - factor model with 14 items indicate a well - adjusted fit to the data (χ2 / df = 1.427, RMSEA = 0.019, SRMR = 0.021, CFI = 0.992, AGFI = 0.982) which confirms study 1's findings.

GFI = Goodness - of - Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of approximation.

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.

First, we ran the hypothesized model (χ2 = 133.01, df = 108, p =.05, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] =.09, confirmatory fit index [CFI] =.91, Tucker — Lewis Index [TLI] =.91) and determined whether all predicted paths were signifiindex [CFI] =.91, Tucker — Lewis Index [TLI] =.91) and determined whether all predicted paths were signifiIndex [TLI] =.91) and determined whether all predicted paths were significant.

Results showed that the fifteen - indicator positive youth development fit the data [Satorra — Bentler scaled χ 2 (90, n = 3,987) = 1,580.48; RMSEA = 0.06; GFI = 0.89; SRMR = 0.041; NNFI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99; CVI = 0.95] and that the three - indicator problem behaviour had excellent fit indices [Satorra — Bentler scaled χ 2 (0, n = 3,987) = 0; CVI = 0.02].

Fit indexes were very good: S - B χ2 = 230.83, 214 df; RCFI =.97; RMSEA =.020, CI =.000 to.037.

The model chi - square is the only model fit statistic available when modeling growth in binary observed variables, and this index suggested that our model provided a good fit to the data, χ 2 (25) = 29.10, p > 0.05.

Fit indexes for the final CFA model were excellent: S - B χ2 = 195.14, 178 df; RCFI =.97; RMSEA =.022, Confidence interval (CI) for RMSEA =.000 to.039.

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.