Identifying and predicting food parenting practice profiles among Canadian parents

Table 3 Model fit statistics for latent profile analyses

K	LL	BIC	SABIC	AIC	CAIC	AWE	VLMR-LRTp	BLRTp	BF	cmP	Entropy
1	− 5095.77	10,265.06	10,230.13	10,213.54	10,234.47	10,239.97	–	–	0.00	0.00	–
2	− 4812.03	9777.77	9704.74	9670.06	9713.81	9725.31	0.314	< 0.001	0.00	0.00	0.621
3	− 4626.77	9487.46	9376.31	9323.54	9390.13	9407.63	0.005	< 0.001	0.11	0.04	0.713
4	− 4564.90	9443.91	9294.66	9223.79	9313.21	9336.71	0.409	< 0.001	1.24	0.39	0.683
5	− 4526.95	9448.22	9260.87	9171.90	9284.15	9313.65	0.029	< 0.001	1.49	0.31	0.737
6	−4490.83	9456.18	9230.71	9123.66	9258.74	9294.24	0.353	< 0.001	4.50	0.21	0.721
7	− 4465.76	9486.25	9222.68	9097.53	9255.44	9296.94	0.096	< 0.001	8.44	0.05	0.709

K number of profiles, LL log-likelihood, BIC Bayesian information criterion, SABIC sample-size adjusted BIC, AIC Akaike information criterion, CAIC consistent AIC, AWE approximate weight of evidence criterion, p error probability, VLMR-LRT Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test, BLRT bootstrapped likelihood ration test, BF Bayes factor, cmP correct model probability. Bolded values indicate best fit for each respective statistic

ISSN: 1479-5868