Developing and Testing a Middle-Range Theory of the Well-Being Supportive Physical Environment of Home-Dwelling Elderly

Table 2

The results of confirmatory factor analysis (data 1–data 3) as indices of relevance to the data.

Model and data	Indices of relevance
	𝜒^2	df	𝜒^2-p-value	GFI	AGFI	RMR	NFI	CFI	RMSEA
Northern environment, four-factor model
Data 1: Northern Finland 75–85	49	21	<.00	.98	.96	.05	.97	.98	.05
Data 2: Southern Finland 65–74	40	19	<.00	.98	.95	.06	.97	.98	.05
Data 3: Northern Finland 65–74	340	21	.01	.98	.95	.05	.97	.99	.05
An environment that enables safe activity
Data 1: Northern Finland 75–85	8	11	.68	.99	.99	.3	.99	1	<.00
Data 2: Southern Finland 65–74	10	11	.57	.99	.98	.02	.99	1	<.00
Data 3: Northern Finland 65–74	7	11	.80	.99	.99	.04	.99	1	<.00
A pleasant physical environment
Data 1: Northern Finland 75–85	60	28	<.00	.98	.96	.04	.96	.98	.05
Data 2: Southern Finland 65–74	75	29	<.00	.96	.93	.06	.94	.96	.07
Data 3: Northern Finland 65–74	52	30	.008	.97	.95	.02	.95	.98	.05