Table 2 Comparisons of measurement model.
From: Promotive and prohibitive ethical voice in groups: the effect of faultlines and role ambiguity
X2 | df | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Promotive ethical voice, prohibitive ethical voice, role ambiguity, GOCB, task performance | 243.00 | 125 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
GOCB and promotive ethical voice combined | 885.44 | 129 | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.10 | 0.09 |
GOCB and prohibitive ethical voice combined | 1132.27 | 129 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.11 | 0.09 |
GOCB and task performance combined | 961.34 | 129 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.10 | 0.09 |
GOCB and role ambiguity | 1163.30 | 129 | 0.79 | 0.75 | 0.10 | 0.10 |
Promotive ethical voice and role ambiguity combined | 941.69 | 129 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.10 | 0.10 |
Prohibitive ethical voice and role ambiguity combined | 1130.54 | 129 | 0.80 | 0.76 | 0.11 | 0.10 |
Task performance and role ambiguity combined | 963.38 | 129 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.10 | 0.09 |
Promotive ethical voice and prohibitive ethical voice combined | 1190.13 | 129 | 0.78 | 0.74 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
Promotive ethical voice and task performance combined | 940.92 | 129 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.10 | 0.09 |
Prohibitive ethical voice and task performance combined | 950.60 | 129 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.10 | 0.09 |
