Skip to main content

Table 3 Goodness-of-fit indices for parent-proxy Kid-KINDLa (n = 247)

From: Psychometric evaluation and wording effects on the Chinese version of the parent-proxy Kid-KINDL

Variables

Model 0

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Model 6

χ 2

1159.51*

472.14*

779.90*

788.09*

280.58*

345.99*

281.68*

df

231

215

229

230

191

205

192

χ 2/df

5.02

2.20

3.41

3.43

1.47

1.67

1.47

GFI

.69

.85

.78

.78

.91

.89

.91

TLI

.51

.86

.74

.71

.94

.92

.94

CFI

.56

.88

.74

.73

.96

.93

.96

IFI

.56

.88

.74

.74

.96

.93

.96

RMSEA

.13

.07

.10

.10

.04

.05

.04

SRMR

.13

.09

.10

.11

.05

.07

.05

  1. Model 0 is a 1-general-factor model
  2. Model 1 is a 6-QoL-factor (physical, emotional, self-esteem, family, friend, and school) model
  3. Model 2 is a 2-oblique-wording-factor (positive and negative wording) model
  4. Model 3 is a 2-orthogonal-wording-factor (positive and negative wording) model
  5. Model 4 is a correlated traits (QoL factors) and correlated methods (wording factors) model (CTCM model)
  6. Model 5 is a correlated traits and one-wording-factor model (CTC [M − 1] model)
  7. Model 6 is a correlated traits and uncorrelated methods model (CTUM model)
  8. GFI goodness-of-fit Index, TLI Tucker-Lewis Index, CFI comparative fit index, IFI incremental fit index, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, SRMR standardized root mean square residual
  9. *P < .05
  10. aItem Fr4 (felt different from other children) was eliminated in all CFA models based on the suggestion of previous studies (Helseth & Lund [21]; Lin et al. [10]; Lee et al. [22]; Wee et al. [23])