Skip to main content

Table 5 Testing gender invariance of the Exercise Addiction Inventory in five different countries: multigroup analyses in six samples

From: A cross-cultural re-evaluation of the Exercise Addiction Inventory (EAI) in five countries

Model

χ 2

df

RMSEA

CFI

Δ χ 2

Δ df

p -Value

ΔRMSEA

ΔCFI

Spain

1.

Configural invariance

25.0

18

0.054

0.968

     
 

Configural vs. metric invariance

    

7.9

5

0.164

0.003

0.014

2.

Metric invariance

32.9

23

0.057

0.954

     
 

Metric vs. scalar invariance

    

20.5

6

<0.003

  

3.

Scalar invariance

53.3

29

0.079

0.887

   

0.022

0.067

UK

1.

Configural invariance

52.8

18

0.115

0.920

     
 

Configural vs. metric invariance

    

7.9

5

0.161

−0.009

0.007

2.

Metric invariance

60.8

23

0.106

0.913

     
 

Metric vs. scalar invariance

    

6.7

6

0.353

  

3.

Scalar invariance

67.9

29

0.096

0.910

   

−0.010

0.003

US

1.

Configural invariance

68.7

16

0.067

0.915

     
 

Configural vs. metric invariance

    

8.6

5

0.127

0.006

0.006

2.

Metric invariance

77.0

23

0.061

0.909

     
 

Metric vs. scalar invariance

    

51.8

6

<0.001

  

3.

Scalar invariance

127.1

29

0.073

0.835

   

0.012

0.074

Denmark

1.

Configural invariance

38.7

18

0.063

0.945

     
 

Configural vs. metric invariance

    

1.9

5

0.866

0.013

0.011

2.

Metric invariance

39.6

23

0.050

0.956

     
 

Metric vs. scalar invariance

    

44.9

6

<0.001

0.030

0.100

3.

Scalar invariance

83.0

29

0.080

0.856

     

Hungary

1.

Configural invariance

29.8

18

0.047

0.977

     
 

Configural vs. metric invariance

    

8.6

5

0.128

0.001

0.006

2.

Metric invariance

38.3

23

0.048

0.971

     
 

Metric vs. scalar invariance

    

32.8

6

<0.001

0.021

0.049

3.

Scalar invariance

69.8

29

0.069

0.922

     

Hungary_2

1.

Configural invariance

98.8

18

0.057

0.944

     
 

Configural vs. metric invariance

    

13.5

5

<0.002

−0.004

0.006

2.

Metric invariance

111.8

23

0.053

0.938

     
 

Metric vs. scalar invariance

    

92.1

6

<0.001

0.013

0.057

3.

Scalar invariance

199.6

29

0.065

0.881

     
  1. The latent variables were identified by fixing one factor loading being equal to 1.
  2. df degree of freedom, RMSEA root mean squared error of approximation, CFI comparative fit index, Δχ 2 Satorra–Bentler scaled (S–B scaled) χ 2difference test, Δdf the difference of df in two models compared, ΔRMSEA the difference of RMSEA values in two models compared, ΔCFI the difference of CFI values in two models compared.