204 The Professional Counselor | Volume 14, Issue 2 RMSEA (.09, 90% CI [.08, .10]) displayed a questionable-to-poor fit. The CMIN tends to underestimate model fit with large samples (Dimitrov, 2012) and the RMSEA tends to underestimate model fit for shorter screening tools (Shi et al., 2019). Accordingly, the collective results of the CFI, NFI, IFI, and SRMR supported satisfactory fit for scores on the unidimensional model. Thus, we proceeded with the MCFA for the unidimensional model. The two-dimensional IWI model items were entered into another CFA to test the fit of the baseline model. The CFA results revealed poor model fit: CMIN (χ2 [169] = 876.11, p < .001, X2/df = 5.18); CFI = .84; NFI = .81; IFI = .84; RMSEA = .11, 90% CI (.09, .11); and SRMR = .16. We decided not to proceed with factorial invariance testing for the two-dimensional IWI model due to both the poor internal structure validity evidence and questionable internal consistency reliability evidence of scores on the External IWI subscale (α = .684, 95% CI [.640, .722]; ω =. 645, 95% CI [.571, .701]). Factorial Invariance Testing: Multiple-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis The unidimensional IWI items were entered into an MCFA (RQ2). To establish invariance of scores, we used the following recommendations from Chen (2007): < ∆ 0.015 in the RMSEA, < ∆ 0.030 in the SRMR for metric invariance or < ∆ 0.015 in SRMR for scalar invariance, and < ∆ 0.010 in the CFI. Results revealed strong measurement invariance (metric and scalar) for all sociodemographic variables (see Table 1). In other words, the MCFA provided strong evidence that IW had the same meaning among adults in the United States across gender identity, ethnoracial identity, help-seeking history, income, and education. Table 1 Multiple-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Inner Wealth Inventory Invariance Forms CFI ∆CFI RMSEA ∆RMSEA RMSEA CIs SRMR ∆SRMR Model Comparison Gender Identity: Male vs. Female Configural .930 .067 .061, .072 .042 Metric .928 .002 .065 .002 .060, .070 .046 .004 Configural Scalar .925 .003 .063 .002 .058, .068 .046 < .0001 Metric Ethnoracial Identity: White vs. Non-White Configural .930 .067 .061, .072 .043 Metric .929 .001 .064 .003 .059, .070 .043 < .0001 Configural Scalar .928 .001 .062 .002 .057, .067 .043 < .0001 Metric Help-Seeking History vs. No Help-Seeking History Configural .934 .064 .059, .070 .038 Metric .935 .001 .061 .003 .056, .067 .039 .001 Configural Scalar .932 .003 .060 .001 .055, .065 .039 < .0001 Metric Income: Below the Poverty Line vs. Above the Poverty Line Configural .922 .071 .066, .077 .041 Metric .922 < .0001 .068 .003 .063, .074 .044 .003 Configural Scalar .921 .001 .066 .002 .061, .071 .044 < .0001 Metric Education: High School vs. Undergraduate and Beyond Configural .928 .068 .062, .073 .045 Metric .928 < .0001 .065 .003 .060, .070 .046 .001 Configural Scalar .928 < .0001 .062 .003 .057, .067 .046 < .0001 Metric
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU5MTM1