Skip to main content

Table 7 Fit indices for the analysis of measurement invariance - Sample 2

From: Evaluating the psychometric properties of the German adaptation of the client attachment to therapist scale

Model χ2 df Δ χ2 Δdf Δ p CFI ΔCFI RMSEA ΔRMSEA
Gender
 Configural invariance 171.683 102     .974   .067  
 Loading invariance 195.790 111 24.107 3 <.001 .968 .006 .070 .003
 Threshold invariance 227.103 145 31.313 34 .600 .969 .001 .061 .009
 Intercept invariance 222.572 154 4.531 9 .873 .974 .005 .054 .007
Age groups (≤39, 40–59, ≥59)         
 Configural invariance 250.897 153     .967   .079  
 Loading invariance 287.178 171 36.281 18 .006 .962 .005 .082 .003
 Threshold invariance 386.929 231 99.751 60 .001 .949 .013 .082 .000
 Partial threshold invariance a 351.020 221 35.909 10 <.001 .957 .008 .076 .006
 Intercept invariance 373.635 235 22.615 14 .067 .954 .003 .076 .000
  1. CFI Comparative fit index, RMSEA Root mean square error of approximation
  2. a = The thresholds of Item 15 (“I think my counselor disapproves of me.”) and 18 (“I don’t like to share my feelings with my counselor.”) was freed to vary between groups