Skip to main content

Table 1 Degree of model fit and measurement invariance of the competing models

From: Well-being profiles in adolescence: psychometric properties and latent profile analysis of the mental health continuum model – a methodological study

General model fit of the measurement models
Model 1: One-factor model (CFA)1360.9877.103<.001.881.859     
Model 2: Two-factor model (CFA)1010.8076.089<.001.913.896     
Model 3: Three-factor model (CFA)532.1274.063<.001.957.948     
Model 4: Three-factor model (ESEM)318.5152.057.023.975.957     
Model 5: Bifactor model (CFA)336.0763.053.208.975.963     
Model 6: Bifactor model (ESEM)224.0741.053.196.983.962     
Comparison of the measurement models 
 Model 3 versus Model 5      228.6111.010.018.015
 Model 4 versus Model 6      119.2511.004.008.005
 Model 3 versus Model 4      265.5322.006.018.009
 Model 5 versus Model 6      161.8722.000.008- .001
Model fit in each group separately (Model 5: Bifactor model, CFA) 
Measurement invariance testing (Model 5: Bifactor model, CFA) 
 Configural invariance370.85126.050.506.978.968     
 Metric invariance388.20150.045.928.978.974     
 Scalar invariance521.77202.045.958.971.974     
 Configural versus metric invariance      58.2924.005.000.006
 Metric versus scalar invariance      200.9252.000.007.000
  1. χ2 Chi Square test statistics, RMSEA Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation, Cfit of RMSEA Closeness of fit test related to RMSEA, CFI Comparative Fit Index, TLI Tucker-Lewis Index, SRMR Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; Δχ2 Chi Square difference test. Chi Square test statistics and Chi Square difference test statistics are significant at least p < .05 level