Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Goodness of fit indices from 3-, 4-, and 5-factor exploratory structural equation models (ESEM) of the EAT-19 in Sample 1

From: Assessing the factor structure and measurement invariance of the eating attitude test (EAT-26) across language and BMI in young Arab women

Descriptions SRMR CD CFI TLI RMSEA 90% CI χ2 (df) AIC BIC Number of Items with Poor Loadingsb
3 factors .050 .994 .838 .763 .099 0.095, 0.104 1454.68 (117)a 72,316.85 72,781.86 3c
4 factors .033 .999 .918 .860 .076 0.071, 0.081 775.69 (100)a 71,671.86 72,222.79 0
5 factors .018 1.000 .976 .952 .045 0.039, 0.051 286.64 (86)a 71,210.81 71,832.50 1d
  1. Note. SRMR standardized root mean square, CD coefficient of determination, CFI comparative fit index, TLI Tucker-Lewis index, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, CI Confidence interval for the RMSEA point estimate, χ2 Chi-squared Statistic, df Degrees of freedom, AIC Akaike’s information criterion, BIC Bayesian information criterion
  2. aSignificant at alpha value of 0.05
  3. bFactor loadings less than 0.40 is considered poor
  4. cThe three items with poor loadings were item 1”Terrified”,7”Vomit”,and item 19”Vomit1”
  5. dThe item with poor loading was item 4 “Awarecal”