The cross-cultural validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults: a comparison between Norway and Brazil

Table 2 Evaluations of measurement invariance between Brazil and Norway

Model	Type of test	Compared with	χ ²	SB χ ²	df	ε _a	CFI	Δdf	ΔSB χ²	Δ ε_a	ΔCFI
M1a	Brazil		937.78	686.47	480	.0441	.9596
M1b	Norway		1195.42	902.93	480	.0530	.9567
M2	Baseline (both models)		2133.19	1586.00	960	.0494	.9579
M3	Factor loadings: λ_{all equal}	M2	2183.00	1620.29	987	.0490	.9574	27	34.87	-.0004	-.0004
M4	Item errors: δ_{all equal}	M3	2518.85	1747.11	1020	.0516	.9511	33	78.72***	.0026	-.0063
M4a	λ_{all equal,} δ_{7 free}	M3	2294.50	1649.03	1013	.0485	.9572	26	36.36	-.0005	-.0002
M5	Intercepts/means: τ_{all equal}	M4a	2614.97	1960.31	1046	.0572	.9385	33	320.47***	.0087	-.0187
M5a	λ_{all equal,} δ_{7 free,} τ_{22 free}	M4a	2313.82	1671.17	1024	.0486	.9565	11	19.32	.0001	-.0007
M6	Latent means equal: κ_{all equal,} λ_{all equal,} δ_{7 free,} τ_{22 free}		2317.73^b	1675.31	1025	.0487	.9563
M6a	Latent means different: κ_{all free,} λ_{all equal,} δ_{7 free,} τ_{22 free}	M6	2306.69	1660.02	1019	.0484	.9569	6	11.04	-.0003	.0006

Note. ^***p < .001. SB χ² = Satorra-Bentler rescaled chi-square, ε_a = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, Δ = change in statistical values. ^bThe model is similar to M5a, except one intercept in the PS factor had to freed up for model identification purposes. λ = factor loadings (lambda), δ = residual error variances (delta), τ = latent intercepts (tau), κ = latent factor means (kappa)