The Chinese version of the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire among college students: factor structure and measurement invariance across genders

Table 4 Measurement invariance model across genders fitting indices and comparison

Model	χ²(df), p	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA (90%CI)	Model comparison	Δχ² (Δdf)	ΔCFI
Male (n = 536)	132.097 (56), p < 0.001	0.998	0.996	0.013	0.050 (0.039–0.062)
Female (n = 383)	118.738 (56), p < 0.001	0.995	0.992	0.018	0.054 (0.041–0.068)
Model 1	250.225 (112), p < 0.001	0.997	0.995	0.015	0.052 (0.043–0.060)
Model 2	234.403 (119), p < 0.001	0.998	0.996	0.015	0.046 (0.037–0.055)	2 versus 1	4.793 (7), p = 0.685	0.001
Model 3	239.616 (154), p < 0.001	0.998	0.998	0.016	0.035 (0.026–00.043)	3 versus 2	34.716 (35), p = 0.452	0
Model 4	297.202 (168), p < 0.001	0.997	0.997	0.021	0.041 (0.033–0.048)	4 versus 3	49.931 (14), p < 0.001	− 0.001

Model 1 = configural invariance; Model 2 = metric invariance; Model 3 = scalar invariance; Model 4 =residual invariance
χ² chi-square, df degree of freedom, CFI comparative fit index, TLI Tucker–Lewis index, SRMR standardized root mean square residual, RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation, CI confidence interval, Δ change in the parameter

ISSN: 1472-6831