second eigenvalue suggest that unidimensionality is a reasonable and more parsimonious explanation for these data. The two factors solution for Santa Clara produced a first factor composed of all dependence items and one abuse item (hazardous use) while the second factor included the other three abuse items. For Pachuca, the two factor solution produced one factor with only 4 dependence items and a second factor with three abuse items (neglect roles, legal problems and social/interpersonal problems) and one dependence item (quit/control) that was not easily interpretable. The factor correlation is very high for the 1st and 2nd dimensions of the solution for both factors (.87 in Santa Clara and .89 in Pachuca) indicating little difference between the two in terms of additional information. The CFAs are also extremely high for both sites for the 1 dimensional solution (.998 in Santa Clara and 1.0 in Pachuca), where above .95 is considered very good. Additionally, the RMSEA is considered to be very low and indicates very good fit for both sites (RMSEA = .05 is considered good fit and RMSEA = .04 in Santa Clara and .01 in Pachuca). Finally, the 2nd eigenvalues were much smaller than the first for both sites
