Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Jun 25.
Published in final edited form as: Cogn Behav Ther. 2009;38(1):29–41. doi: 10.1080/16506070902980745

Table 1.

Summary of ARMA models for each participant with indices of model adequacy

Participant Condition Autoregressive parameters Moving average parameters SBC Residuals exceeding critical χ2
1 CBT 4 1, 6 746.70 1
2 CBT 4 1, 8 964.76 2
3 CBT 1 3, 14 911.92 0
4 CBT 1, 3 4 760.03 2
5 CBT 1, 5, 8, 10 8 483.14 3
6 CBT 1, 4, 6, 8, 10 595.43 3
7 CBT 1 9 1042.35 0
8 CBT 1 2, 4 1327.35 0
9 CBT 1, 3, 6, 7, 9 1 1136.46 4
10 CBT 1, 3 1 535.12 5
11 AR 1 1, 3, 5 1080.22 3
12 AR 1 1 803.45 3
13 AR 2, 4, 6, 8 768.34 0
14 AR 1, 4, 6 2, 3 1567.63 1
15 AR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 663.29 7
16 AR 1, 3, 9 3 468.59 3
17 AR 2 1 957.34 1
18 AR 1 1 883.62 2
19 AR 1, 9 11 1368.45 1
20 AR 1, 2 2, 9 1026.28 4

Note. For Participants 9, 10, 15, and 20, these were the best possible models for the data despite a slightly high number of residuals. ARMA=autoregressive/moving average; SBC=Schwarz’s Bayesian criterion, reported for the final restricted model; CBT=cognitive behavioural therapy; AR=applied relaxation.