From: Assessing adolescents’ perceived proficiency in critically evaluating nutrition information
Model Identification | Unstandardized solution | Completely standardized solution | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DWLS | ML | DWLS | ML | ||||
FP | Observed variables | Estimate | (SE) | Estimate | (SE) | Estimate | Estimate |
1 | CNL1 factor loading | .981 | (.024) | .976 | (.024) | .856 | .852 |
CNL2 factor loading | 1.000* | 1.000* | .872 | .873 | |||
2 | CNL3 factor loading | .932 | (.020) | .930 | (.020) | .813 | .812 |
3 | CNL4 factor loading | .932 | (.023) | .933 | (.023) | .813 | .814 |
4 | CNL5 factor loading | .931 | (.021) | .931 | (.021) | .812 | .813 |
5 | CNL1 unique variance | .267 | .274 | .267 | .274 | ||
6 | CNL2 unique variance | .239 | .238 | .239 | .238 | ||
7 | CNL3 unique variance | .339 | .341 | .339 | .341 | ||
8 | CNL4 unique variance | .339 | .337 | .339 | .337 | ||
9 | CNL5 unique variance | .340 | .339 | .340 | .339 | ||
10 | CNL1,CNL4 uniqueness relationship** | − 0.061 | (.021) | − 0.059 | (.021) | −.061 | −.059 |
11 | CNL2,CNL5 uniqueness relationship** | − 0.066 | (.018) | −0.067 | (.018) | −.066 | −.067 |
Latent variable | |||||||
12 | CNL-Eval variance*** | .761 | .024 | .762 | .024 | 1.000 | 1.000 |