Table 6 |
||||||
Measurement invariance for the two 1–factor anxiety models | ||||||
Chi–square (df) | P–value | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | WRMR | |
1–Factor PSA anxiety | ||||||
1. less restrictive | 13.052 (13) | .4438 | 1.00 | 1.00 | .004 | .560 |
2. more restrictive | 34.804 (12) | .0005 | .989 | .988 | .092 | 1.225 |
1. vs 2. | 23.312 (4) | .0001 | ||||
1–Factor PCS-D anxiety | ||||||
1. less restrictive | 14.206 (12) | .2878 | .999 | .999 | .029 | .577 |
2. more restrictive | 23.553 (16) | .0997 | .996 | .997 | .046 | .833 |
1. vs 2. | 9.554 (5) | .0889 |
Note. df = degrees of freedom; PSA = prostate–specific antigen test, DRE=digital rectal examination; PCS-D = prostate cancer screening decision; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; WRMR = weighted root mean square residual; bold font indicates adequate fit.
Linder et al.
Linder et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2012 12:52 doi:10.1186/1472-6947-12-52