CFA of five different factor structures

[Denbaste]

Hi! I am writing a research paper on a psychometric instrument called the self-compassion scale (SCS). It is a 26-item self-questionnaire used to measure self-compassion as a total score of three bipolar components that togehter form six factors; self-kindness vs self-judgment (10 items), common humanity vs isolation (8 items), and mindfulness vs over-identification (8 items). There is an ongoing debate among researchers whether self-compassion should be measured as a single overarching construct or if it should be separated into two distinct constructs of self-compassion and self-uncompassion. Self-compassion would then consist of the sum of the compassionate self-responding items (CS) and self-uncompassion would consist of the sum of the reduced uncompassionate self-responding items (RUS).
To test which model best fit the data i made a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for five different models; a 1-factor model with a unitary self-compassion dimension, a 2-factor correlated model with two unitary factors representing CS and RUS, a 6-factor correlated model with six components loading onto a single over-arching construct of self-compassion, single bifactor model with one general self-compassion factor and six group factors, and a 2-bifactor correlated model with two correlated general factors, self-compassion and self-criticism, each with three group factors representing compassionate (CS) or reduced uncompassionate self-responding (RUS)).
I have attached a path diagram for each model as I would like to know if my models correspond to the ones described above.

[Denbaste]

And the last two models.

[simonmoon]

None of your diagrams are showing bifactor models. I am curious if you wanted or meant a hierarchical model, not bi-factor model. Considering the modeling history of bi-factor models, I am not sure if you have a good theoretical rationale for bi-factor models. If you did mean bi-factor models, then hierarchical factor models are deserved to be included as competing models.
Also, clarifying your description will be helpful. Constructs -> factors; "unitary" for a single factor; "2-factor correlated model" -> 2 correlated factor model, etc.

[reichelmarcia]

Your diagrams don't include any illustrations of bifactor models. I was wondering if a hierarchical model (rather than a bi-factor model) was what you had in mind. Given the bi-factor modeling history, I'm skeptical that you have a solid theoretical justification for using such a model. If by "bi-factor models" you really mean "two-factor models," then hierarchical factor models should be considered alongside their bi-factor counterparts. basketball stars