Figure 2—Comparison of the standard and expanded one-factor CFA models of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) in study populations from Spain and Mauritius.

Dataset (N)Model (standardized weights)Goodness of Fit Indices
χ2 [df] (P value)SRMRRMSEARMSEA (90% CI)AICCFI
Hypothetical (X)One-factor model with perfect fit0 [−] (1.00)00(0.00–0.05)lowest1.00
Spanish (16)One-Factor (MetS) standard model*4.7 [7] (0.69)0.040.00(0.00–0.05)30.71.00
(N = 410)MenWomen
Waist (0.80)Waist (0.86)
Trigly/HDL-c (0.38)Trigly/HDL-c (0.50)
HOMA IR (0.47)HOMA IR (0.57)
MAP (0.50)MAP (0.65)
Spanish (16)One-Factor (MetS) expanded model27.4 [18] (0.07)0.050.04(0.00–0.06)75.40.99
(N = 410)MenWomen
Waist (0.87)Waist (0.89)
Leptin (0.73)Leptin (0.80)
Uric Acid (0.56)Uric Acid (0.48)
TGL/HDL-c (0.38)TGL/HDL-c (0.48)
HOMA IR (0.45)HOMA IR (0.57)
MAP (0.47)MAP (0.60)
Mauritian (9)One-Factor (MetS) standard model*40.9 [4] (<.001)0.030.06(0.04–0.07)72.90.98
(N = 3061)MenWomen
Waist (0.84)Waist (0.83)
Trigly/HDL-c (0.56)Trigly/HDL-c (0.46)
HOMA IR (0.71)HOMA IR (0.62)
MAP (0.36)MAP (0.37)
Mauritian (9)One-Factor (MetS) expanded model314.2 [18] (<.001)0.050.07(0.07–0.08)362.20.94
(N = 3061)MenWomen
Waist (0.88)Waist (0.87)
Leptin (0.75)Leptin (0.73)
Uric Acid (0.33)Uric Acid (0.42)
Trigly/HDL-c (0.54)Trigly/HDL-c (0.42)
HOMA IR (0.70)HOMA IR (0.62)
MAP (0.36)MAP (0.34)
  • * Trigylceride-to-HDL (Trigly/HDL-c) ratio and HOMA-IR were log transformed. All standardized weights are significant at P = 0.01 for the two-tailed test.

  • Leptin, trigylceride-to-HDL ratio, and HOMA-IR were log transformed. All standardized weights are significant at P = 0.01 for the two-tailed test. CFI, comparative fit index; SRMR, standardized root mean-square residual; RMSEA, root mean-square error of approximation.