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

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

	χ²	df	RMSEA	Cfit of RMSEA	CFI	TLI	Δχ2	Δdf	ΔRMSEA	ΔCFI	ΔTLI
General model fit of the measurement models
Model 1: One-factor model (CFA)	1360.98	77	.103	<.001	.881	.859
Model 2: Two-factor model (CFA)	1010.80	76	.089	<.001	.913	.896
Model 3: Three-factor model (CFA)	532.12	74	.063	<.001	.957	.948
Model 4: Three-factor model (ESEM)	318.51	52	.057	.023	.975	.957
Model 5: Bifactor model (CFA)	336.07	63	.053	.208	.975	.963
Model 6: Bifactor model (ESEM)	224.07	41	.053	.196	.983	.962
Comparison of the measurement models
Model 3 versus Model 5							228.61	11	.010	.018	.015
Model 4 versus Model 6							119.25	11	.004	.008	.005
Model 3 versus Model 4							265.53	22	.006	.018	.009
Model 5 versus Model 6							161.87	22	.000	.008	- .001
Model fit in each group separately (Model 5: Bifactor model, CFA)
Boys	197.70	63	.053	.272	.971	.958
Girls	174.13	63	.047	.715	.983	.975
Measurement invariance testing (Model 5: Bifactor model, CFA)
Configural invariance	370.85	126	.050	.506	.978	.968
Metric invariance	388.20	150	.045	.928	.978	.974
Scalar invariance	521.77	202	.045	.958	.971	.974
Configural versus metric invariance							58.29	24	.005	.000	.006
Metric versus scalar invariance							200.92	52	.000	.007	.000

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

ISSN: 1477-7525