Consumer adoption of personalised nutrition services from the perspective of a risk–benefit trade-off

Genes & Nutrition

Table 3 Fit measures for the one-factor multi-item models and the overall measurement model

	Scalar invariance	Chi-square	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA			SRMR
	Scalar invariance	Chi-square	df	CFI	TLI	Value	90 % LB	90 % UB	SRMR
One-Factor Models
Adoption Intention	Partial^a	344.92	27	0.992	0.992	0.076	0.069	0.083	0.030
Personalisation Benefit	Yes	90.50	28	0.999	0.999	0.330	0.026	0.041	0.013
Privacy Risk	Yes	208.01	28	0.997	0.99	0.056	0.048	0.063	0.018
Information Intrusiveness	Yes	219.54	28	0.996	0.996	0.058	0.051	0.065	0.027
Service Effectiveness	Yes	79.57	28	0.999	0.999	0.030	0.022	0.028	0.010
Information Control	Yes	275.22	28	0.994	0.995	0.066	0.059	0.073	0.034
Ability of Service Provider	Yes	107.63	28	0.999	0.999	0.037	0.030	0.045	0.011
Benevolence of Service Provider	Partial^b	692.80	51	0.988	0.988	0.079	0.074	0.084	0.048
Integrity of Service Provider	Yes	211.13	28	0.996	0.997	0.057	0.050	0.064	0.019
Overall Measurement Model	Partial^c	14,264.38	2922	0.980	0.977	0.044	0.043	0.044	0.032

^aEquality of item intercept relaxed for item 1 in Poland
^bModel includes error covariance between item 1 and item 4, which is equal across countries except Norway. Equality of item intercept relaxed for item 1 in Spain, Poland, and The Netherlands. Equality of item intercept relaxed for item 2 in Norway and Poland
^cIncluding error covariance and intercept relaxations identified in the one-factor measurement models

ISSN: 1865-3499