Skip to main content

Table 4 Goodness of Fit for the CFA, comparison between the French version and the original study

From: Further validation of the Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for psychosis

 

Current study (control group)

Current study (psychosis and depression groups)

Original study (psychosis group)

Model

CFI

RMSEA

χ2

p

IBF

CFI

RMSEA

χ2

p

IBF

CFI

RMSEA

χ2

p

IBF

five-factor model; Independent factors

.179

.086 (.082-.082)

2126.257

< .001

–

.207

.256 (.244-.268)

1808.187

< .001

–

.464

.083 (.077-.088)

1133.99

< .001

–

five-factor model; Related factors

.895

.031 (.026-.036)

615.071

< .001

.656-1.359

.922

.081 (.063-.098)

533.724

< .001

.709-1.062

.933

.030 (.019-.038)

485.90

< .001

.89-.98

two-factor model; Independent factors

.598

.060 (.056-.064)

1246.704

< .001

–

.610

.179 (.167-.192)

1094.894

< .001

–

.779

.061 (.054-.067)

677.21

< .001

–

two-factor model; Related factors

.882

.033 (.028-.037)

650.975

< .001

.745

.926

.078 (.059-.095)

535.010

< .001

.832

.969

.022 (.001-.024)

92.44

.201

.77

one-factor model

.866

.035 .030-.039)

685.464

< .001

–

.920

.081 (.063-.098)

547.315

< .001

–

.934

.029 (.019-.037)

494.09

.002

–

  1. CFA Confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA), comparison between the French version and the original study (Peters et al., 2014)
  2. CFI Comparative Fit Index
  3. RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, IBF Intercorrelations Between Factors
Back to article page

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

Contact us