Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.
Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of CFA and ESEM models

From: Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the quality of nursing care scale among hospital nurses: a bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling analysis

Model comparison

Δχ2

Δdf

p

ΔCFI

ΔTLI

ΔRMSEA

ΔSRMR

ΔAIC

ΔBIC

ΔSABIC

M4 vs. M1

-1371.61

-106

0.000

0.068

0.052

-0.022

-0.021

-1159.61

-645.50

-982.15

M4 vs. M3

-1313.88

-105

0.000

0.065

0.049

-0.021

-0.025

-1103.88

-594.62

-928.09

M6 vs. M3

1559.14

125

0.000

0.077

0.067

-0.031

-0.032

-1309.14

-702.87

-1099.86

M6 vs. M4

-245.25

20

0.000

0.012

0.018

-0.010

-0.007

-205.25

-108.25

-171.77

  1. Note M = model; χ2 = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; SABIC = sample-size-adjusted Bayesian information criterion
Back to article page

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

Contact us