American Association for Cancer Research

Skip to Main Content

Table 1.

Model development and validation (PCCaSO, 2005)

Model	χ²	df	P	CFI	RMSEA	90% CI	AIC	Notes
Model development: first random half of sample (n = 543)
All 14 cons	289.06	77	<0.001	0.843	0.071	0.063-0.080	345.06	Dropped MD rec loading <0.30
13 cons + 8 pros	542.04	188	<0.001	0.837	0.059	0.053-0.065	670.04	Dropped 3 cross-loading cons
10 cons + 8 pros	314.73	134	<0.001	0.894	0.050	0.043-0.057	424.73
10 cons, 8 pros + 4 norms	621.72	206	<0.001	0.832	0.061	0.056-0.067	759.72	High correlation between norms and pros 0.88, P < 0.001
10 cons + combined pros and norms factor	654.33	208	<0.001	0.820	0.063	0.058-0.068	788.33	Not a significant improvement
2nd-order factor of pros and norms correlated with 10 cons	640.79	207	<0.001	0.825	0.062	0.057-0.068	776.79	Not a significant improvement
Correlated 4-factor model: cons, pros, norms, self-efficacy	1136.11	399	<0.001	0.864	0.58	0.054-0.62	1268.11	Examined modification indices
Added 3 error covariances to correlated 4-factor model	960.10	396	<0.001	0.896	0.051	0.047-0.055	1098.10	Final model. significant improvement; χ²Δ = 176.01 (dfΔ = 3)
Final model validation
Second random half of sample (n = 558)	1000.77	396	<0.001	0.893	0.052	0.048-0.056	1138.77
Full sample (n = 1,250)	1507.51	396	<0.001	0.909	0.047	0.045-0.050	1705.51	See Fig. 1
Full sample at 2-wk follow-up (n = 1,036)	1014.93	396	<0.001	0.917	0.039	0.036-0.042	1212.93

Model	χ²	df	P	CFI	RMSEA	90% CI	AIC	Notes
Model development: first random half of sample (n = 543)
All 14 cons	289.06	77	<0.001	0.843	0.071	0.063-0.080	345.06	Dropped MD rec loading <0.30
13 cons + 8 pros	542.04	188	<0.001	0.837	0.059	0.053-0.065	670.04	Dropped 3 cross-loading cons
10 cons + 8 pros	314.73	134	<0.001	0.894	0.050	0.043-0.057	424.73
10 cons, 8 pros + 4 norms	621.72	206	<0.001	0.832	0.061	0.056-0.067	759.72	High correlation between norms and pros 0.88, P < 0.001
10 cons + combined pros and norms factor	654.33	208	<0.001	0.820	0.063	0.058-0.068	788.33	Not a significant improvement
2nd-order factor of pros and norms correlated with 10 cons	640.79	207	<0.001	0.825	0.062	0.057-0.068	776.79	Not a significant improvement
Correlated 4-factor model: cons, pros, norms, self-efficacy	1136.11	399	<0.001	0.864	0.58	0.054-0.62	1268.11	Examined modification indices
Added 3 error covariances to correlated 4-factor model	960.10	396	<0.001	0.896	0.051	0.047-0.055	1098.10	Final model. significant improvement; χ²Δ = 176.01 (dfΔ = 3)
Final model validation
Second random half of sample (n = 558)	1000.77	396	<0.001	0.893	0.052	0.048-0.056	1138.77
Full sample (n = 1,250)	1507.51	396	<0.001	0.909	0.047	0.045-0.050	1705.51	See Fig. 1
Full sample at 2-wk follow-up (n = 1,036)	1014.93	396	<0.001	0.917	0.039	0.036-0.042	1212.93

Abbreviations: CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; 90% CI, 90% confidence interval; AIC, Akaike information criterion.