. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jan 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 Nov 21;51(1):28–40.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2011.09.021

Table 1.

Model comparisons, fit statistics, and class proportions based on autism symptoms.

Model	Factor/ Class #	LL	Par	BIC	Comparison	Class Proportions
LCA	2 class	−134017	25	268256		.57, .43
	3 class	−127148	34	254598		.31, .32, .37
	4 class	−124544	43	249468		.17, .20, .30, .33
	5 class	−123150	52	246759		.10, .13, .21, .25, .31
	6 class	−122499	61	245537	Best fitting LCA	.09, .11, .19, .19, .12, .30
EFA	1 factor	−123767	24	247746
	2 factor	−122803	31	245881	Parsimonious EFA
	3 factor	−122575	37	245478	Best fitting EFA
FM	2 factor 1 class	−122994	25	246208
	2 factor 2 class	−122055	35	244420	Parsimonious model	.63, .37
	2 factor 3 class	−118305	47	237027	Best overall fit	.14, .56, .30

Note. Lower values of the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) indicate better fit. Akaike Information Criterion and sample-adjusted BIC showed an identical pattern. Factor mixture models specified strong measurement invariance. Bold designates classes with predominantly Autism Spectrum Disorder-affected youth.

EFA=Exploratory Factor Analysis, FM = Factor Mixture model analysis, LCA=Latent Class Analysis, LL = Log Likelihood, Par = No. of estimated parameters.