The Idiots Tips For PFKM Described

08 and a CFI >0.90 indicate an adequate fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005). The two path models, as depicted in Figures 1A,B are nested and can be compared statistically. Results Descriptives statistics Table ?Table11 shows means, standard learn more deviations, and minima and maxima for each measure. Mean scores on the standardized test for reading comprehension indicate overall average performance. Table ?Table22 shows that all variables are significantly correlated. As found by previous studies (e.g., Potts and Peterson, 1985; Hannon and Daneman, 2001), the TM component is strongly correlated with TI and KI, whereas these latter two are only moderately correlated to each other (r = 0.37). KI is strongly correlated with reading comprehension (r = 0.48), whereas the other components are moderately correlated with reading comprehension. The working memory measure (i.e., sentence span task) appears to be weakly correlated to all other measures. Table 1 Means and standard deviations for the component processes task, reading comprehension, and working memory. Table 2 Correlations among CPT components and additional measures. Path analysis First, the full model including both direct and indirect effects, as depicted in Figure ?Figure1B,1B, was tested. Together, the fit indices indicated a reasonable model fit. Although the non-significant chi-square, ��2(1) = 0.26, p = 0.104, and a CFI of 0.99 indicated good fit, the RMSEA of 0.10 indicated a moderate fit, and five paths were not statistically significant: working memory��TI (�� = 0.01, p = 0.873), working memory��KI (�� = 0.05, p = 0.489), TM��reading comprehension (�� = 0.09, p = 0.318), selleck chemicals llc TI��reading comprehension (�� = 0.11, p = 0.134), and working memory��reading comprehension (�� = 0.12, p = 0.070). For reasons of parsimony, we removed these paths one by one, starting from the path with the smallest standardized loading. For the first four paths, all ����2's were non-significant indicating that the model fit did not worsen. After removing the first four paths, however, the remaining path from working memory to reading comprehension appeared significant (�� = 0.15, p = 0.026) and was, therefore, not removed from the model; removing this path significantly worsened the model fit (����2 = 4.84, p = 0.028). Figure ?Figure22 shows the results of the final model. PFKM Figure 2 Final model, including the standardized estimates of the variables influencing reading comprehension performance, the significant pathways are indicated with an asterisk, *p