Table 1 Goodness-of-fit statistics and...

Table 1

Goodness-of-fit statistics and comparisons between the three models of professional rapport

Models	χ2	Df	χ2/df	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA	RMSEA 95% CI	ECVI	PNFI	Δχ2
Model 1a	946.71	289	3.28	0.96	0.96	0.024	0.067	0.062–0.072	2.21	0.84
Model 1b	761.98	286	2.70	0.97	0.97	0.020	0.057	0.052–0.062	1.86	0.84
Model 2	784.37	291	2.70	0.97	0.97	0.020	0.058	0.053–0.063	1.88	0.86
Model 3	917.77	296	3.10	0.97	0.96	0.018	0.064	0.060–0.069	2.12	0.86
Model 1–Model 2											22.39*
Model 1–Model 3											155.79*

Models	χ2	Df	χ2/df	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA	RMSEA 95% CI	ECVI	PNFI	Δχ2
Model 1a	946.71	289	3.28	0.96	0.96	0.024	0.067	0.062–0.072	2.21	0.84
Model 1b	761.98	286	2.70	0.97	0.97	0.020	0.057	0.052–0.062	1.86	0.84
Model 2	784.37	291	2.70	0.97	0.97	0.020	0.058	0.053–0.063	1.88	0.86
Model 3	917.77	296	3.10	0.97	0.96	0.018	0.064	0.060–0.069	2.12	0.86
Model 1–Model 2											22.39*
Model 1–Model 3											155.79*

Note(s):

Model 1a = five-factor correlated models including 26 items; Model 1b = five-factor correlated models including 26 items including correlation paths; Model 2 = second-order model; Model 3 = unidimensional models *p > 0.05

Source(s): Authors’ own work

[ViewLarge]