Table 3. Comparison of fit index for the... | Emerald Publishing

Table 3.

Comparison of fit index for the causal process

Tested processes	χ²	CFI	RMSEA	AIC	BIC	SRMR (within)	SRMR (between)
1 → 2 → 3 → 4a,4b (Hypothesis)	1.397 (p = 0.97)	1.000	0.000	8,448.608	8,582.178	0.000	0.036
1 → 3 → 2 → 4a,4b	16.582 (p = 0.01)	0.994	0.034	8,456.280	8,589.850	0.006	0.046
2 → 1 → 3 → 4a,4b	31.220 (p < 0.01)	0.987	0.052	8,463.232	8,596.802	0.005	0.073
2 → 3 → 1 → 4a,4b	18.573 (p < 0.01)	0.993	0.037	8,457.863	8,591.432	0.006	0.061
3 → 1 → 2 → 4a,4b	41.595 (p < 0.01)	0.987	0.052	8,462.862	8,596.432	0.005	0.064
3 → 2 → 1 → 4a,4b	2.905 (p = 0.82)	1.000	0.000	8,449.673	8,583.242	0.001	0.046

Tested processes	χ²	CFI	RMSEA	AIC	BIC	SRMR(within)	SRMR(between)
1 → 2 → 3 → 4a,4b (Hypothesis)	1.397 (p = 0.97)	1.000	0.000	8,448.608	8,582.178	0.000	0.036
1 → 3 → 2 → 4a,4b	16.582 (p = 0.01)	0.994	0.034	8,456.280	8,589.850	0.006	0.046
2 → 1 → 3 → 4a,4b	31.220 (p < 0.01)	0.987	0.052	8,463.232	8,596.802	0.005	0.073
2 → 3 → 1 → 4a,4b	18.573 (p < 0.01)	0.993	0.037	8,457.863	8,591.432	0.006	0.061
3 → 1 → 2 → 4a,4b	41.595 (p < 0.01)	0.987	0.052	8,462.862	8,596.432	0.005	0.064
3 → 2 → 1 → 4a,4b	2.905 (p = 0.82)	1.000	0.000	8,449.673	8,583.242	0.001	0.046

Notes:

1 = daily communication, 2 = transactive memory system, 3 = implicit coordination, 4a = team performance in Company A, 4b = team performance in Company B. Team size was controlled