Ìý | Chi-square | Df |
P
| CFI | RMSEA | RMSEA 90% CI | λ range | Total # of items |
---|
Model 1 | 20.64 | 2 | <.0001 | 0.877 | 0.213 | 0.136, 0.301 | 0.482–0.796 | 36 |
Model 2 | 16.62 | 5 | 0.005 | 0.946 | 0.106 | 0.053, 0.165 | 0.219–0.741 | 18 |
Model 3 | 13.80 | 5 | 0.02 | 0.923 | 0.093 | 0.036, 0.153 | 0.439–0.663 | 14 |
Model 4 | 4.24 | 2 | 0.12 | 0.978 | 0.074 | 0.000, 0.174 | 0.490–0.760 | 12 |
- Note. Model 1 = composite scores of original adequacy, original predilection, benefits, barriers, and skills compared to peers. Model 2 = composite scores of intrinsic, identified, introjected, and external regulation as well as competence. Model 3 = composite scores of intrinsic regulation, skill compared to peers, shortened adequacy and shortened predilection, and a behaviour subscale. Model 4 = composite scores of 3 items each for adequacy, predilection, competence, intrinsic motivation
- CFI comparative fit index, CI 90% confidence interval Df degrees of freedom, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, λ standardized factor loading