TABLE 3.
ACE reduction analyses.
| Model | EP | Δ df | p | AIC | Δ AIC | Compare with model | Fit units |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bullying perpetration | |||||||
| ACE | 8 | 10,313 | 0 | −2lnL | |||
| ADE | 8 | 0 | 10,313 | 0 | ACE | −2lnL | |
| AE | 7 | 1 | 0.288 | 10,312 | −0.87 | ACE | −2lnL |
| Depressive symptoms | |||||||
| ACE | 12 | 55,574 | 0 | −2lnL | |||
| ADE | 12 | 0 | 55,574 | 0 | ACE | −2lnL | |
| AE | 11 | 1 | 0.137 | 55,573 | 0.209 | ACE | −2lnL |
Note: Fit comparisons between models based in a likelihood ratio test. No significant fit differences were found for either phenotype. All variables were treated as ordinal factors, age and household income were included as covariates. AIC, Akaike information criteria; df, degrees of freedom; EP, estimated parameters; lnL, log‐likelihood.