Table 5.

Univariate MZ and DZ twin correlations and estimates of $a^2$, $c^2$, and $e^2$ for HV3, with nested AE and CE model comparisons.

Variable/statistic	TCICU	MLU	NDW	NTW	TNC
MZ
r	.67	.37	.25	.25	.41
95% CI	[.54, .76]	[.17, .54]	[.00, .47]	[.00, .48]	[.17, .61]
n pairs	98	87	56	56	56
DZ
r	.54	.22	.20	.25	.35
95% CI	[.40, .64]	[.02, .41]	[.00, .41]	[.02, .47]	[.12, .54]
n pairs	130	96	63	63	63
ACE model parameter estimates
$a^2$	.53	.28	.24	.05	.08
95% CI	[.28, .79]	[.00, .52]	[.00, .50]	[.00, .47]	[.00, .53]
$c^2$	.23	.09	.06	.21	.30
95% CI	[.00, .44]	[.00, .40]	[.00, .36]	[.00, .39]	[.00, .48]
$e^2$	.24	.64	.71	.74	.63
95% CI	[.18, .33]	[.48, .82]	[.50, .95]	[.53, .92]	[.46, .79]
AE model vs. ACE model
Fit statistics
AIC (ACE)	297.23	324.74	270.94	268.87	257.84
BIC (ACE)	−695.95	−506.07	−384.94	−385.97	−391.49
AIC (AE)	298.74	322.90	268.99	267.66	257.50
BIC (AE)	−696.94	−508.68	−387.55	−388.21	−393.30
AE model parameter estimates
$a^2$	.77	.37	.31	.31	.42
95% CI	[.69, .83]	[.21, .52]	[.07, .50]	[.10, .49]	[.24, .57]
$e^2$	.23	.63	.69	.69	.58
95% CI	[.17, .31]	[.48, .79]	[.50, .93]	[.51, .90]	[.44, .76]
CE model vs. ACE model
Fit statistics
AIC (ACE)	297.23	324.74	270.94	268.87	257.84
BIC (ACE)	−695.95	−506.07	−384.94	−385.97	−391.49
AIC (CE)	310.39	323.85	269.41	266.89	255.92
BIC (CE)	−691.12	−508.20	−387.34	−388.60	−394.09
CE model parameter estimates
$c^2$	.59	.29	.21	.25	.35
95% CI	[.50, .66]	[.15, .42]	[.04, .37]	[.08, .39]	[.20, .48]
$e^2$	.41	.71	.79	.75	.65
95% CI	[.34, .50]	[.58, .85]	[.63, .96]	[.61, .92]	[.52, .80]

Note. Boldface type indicates lower AIC and BIC values (indicating a better fitting model) for each model-fitting comparison. AIC (ACE/AE/CE) = AIC for the ACE/AE/CE model. BIC (ACE/AE/CE) = BIC for the ACE/AE/CE model.