Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Sex Med. 2010 Sep 16;8(1):191–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02007.x

Table 3.

Parameter estimates of fixed and random effects and goodness-of-fit indices for selected models predicting Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) Total score

Parameter Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Fixed effects
  Level 1
    Intercept γ00 19.56** (0.57) 18.39** (0.64) 17.35** (0.70) 12.34** (1.98)
    Time γ10 2.08** (0.33) 5.87** (0.82) 4.06** (0.72) 4.09** (0.72)
    Time2 γ20 −1.27** (0.22) −0.92** (0.23) −0.93** (0.22)
    SSE γ30 0.83** (0.12) 0.78** (0.10)
  Level 2
    FSFI-Satisfaction/intercept γ01 1.72 (0.65)
Random effects
  Level 1
    Residual σ2ε 14.06 (2.10) 11.82 (1.77) 8.98 (1.15) 8.98 (1.13)
  Level 2
    Intercept σ20 7.81 (3.89) 8.93** (3.71) 14.85** (4.05) 12.32** (3.49)
    Time σ21 1.88 (1.10) 1.77* (0.96)
    Satisfying sexual events σ23 0.09 (0.07) 0.03 (0.04)
No. of estimated parameters 6 7 8 9
Deviance 1,105.8 1,083.3 1,031.9 1,025.7
Pseudo-R2 0.16 0.36 0.36
**

P < 0.001,

*

P < 0.01,

P < 0.05.

Models did not include random effects for time2 or FSFI-Satisfaction score caused by negligible effects on goodness-of-fit. Pseudo-R2 is based on the comparison of the unconditional growth model (Model 1) to more parametized models [20].