Page 20 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 20

index and the oversimplifica�on of universal cases across all scales at a minimal .94%. The
cut-off points (Chen et al., 2008; Miles & Shev- highly recommended, theore�cally driven ma-
lin, 2006; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). For exam- ximum likelihood (ML) procedure within SPSS
ple, the chi-square goodness of fit sta�s�c is li- AMOS was used to es�mate missing data (Byr-
able to overes�mate significance in large samp- ne, 2000).
les and the present study had a large sample
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Recommended in- Results
dices include the root mean square error of ap- Preliminary analysis determined that sta�s�cal
proxima�on (RMSEA) where a value of .01 or assump�ons surrounding linearity and mul�-
below indicates an excellent (close) fit, and .05 collinearity of the variables were met, and
a good fit (Chen et al. 2008). Next, the compa- skewness and kurtosis were acceptable (Strei-
ra�ve fit index (CFI) measures model fit rela�ve ner, 2005). Internal consistency for each mea-
to other models and values above .95 o�en in- sure was sufficient, sugges�ng the instruments
dicate good fi�ng models (Tabachnick & Fidell, acted reliably (Cronbach’s alphas of .719-.96),
2013), and finally the incremental fit index (IFI) and descrip�ve sta�s�cs for each measure are
demonstrates a good fit when correla�ons ap- provided in Table 1. Pearson correla�on coeffi-
proach 1 (Miles & Shevlin, 2006). In the present cients are provided in Table 2, and despite gen-
study no item was missing data for more than der bias in the sample no significant differences
.5% (n = 13) of cases, leading to total missing were found between males and females.

Table 1. Descrip�ve Sta�s�cs

Variable M SD Possible Range Cronbach’s Alpha Previous Cronbach’s Alpha
CGS 49.82 7.22 12-60 .922 .95 (Knabb & Wang, 2019)
HSD 39.25 5.48 7-49 .816 .72-.79 (Rowa� et al., 2006)
GQ-6 37.73 4.1 6-42 .719 .82 (McCullough et al., 2002)
SCBCS 28.9 4.72 5-35 .883 .89 (Plante & Mejia, 2016)
SWEMBS 26.71 3.78 7-35 .806 .845 (Stewart-Brown et al.,
2009)
SWLS 25.46 6.05 7-35 .858 .87 (Diener et al., 1985)
SPANE 9.17 7.4 -24-24 .96 .89 (Diener et al., 2010)

Table 2. Pearson Correla�ons for Path Model

Variables CGS HSD GQ-6 SCBCS SWEMBS SWLS SPANE
1 Communion with God
2 Virtue Humility .333
3 Virtue Gra�tude .441 .229
4 Virtue Compassion .392 .406 .279
5 Eudaimonic Well-being .491 .324 .468 .204
6 Hedonic Well-being .336 .131 .435 .069 .553
7 Affec�ve Experience .472 .321 .494 .19 .767 .572

Note: All correla�ons significant at p < .01

20