TABLE 2—
Statistic and Descriptive Fit Indices From Multilevel Modeling to Explore Differences in Growth Trends in Mental Health Recovery Scores Over Time Between Patient-Centered Medical Home and Services as Usual Participants: San Diego County, CA, 2011–2013
| Mental Health Assessment Tool and Model Number | LR Test (χ2) vs Single-Level Model | LR Test (χ2) Comparison With Preceding Model | χ2 Difference (∆χ2) Test Comparison With Model 1 | CFI Comparison With Model 1 | AIC |
| Clinician-reported mental health recovery | |||||
| Total IMR | |||||
| Model 1 | 1 014.45*** | ||||
| Model 2 | 1 033.04*** | 514.002*** | 7327.14*** | 0.0694 | 10 668.77 |
| Model 3 | 2 589.69*** | 1 556.656*** | 11 491.73 | ||
| Model 4 | 7 286.66*** | 4 696.970*** | 13 019.77 | ||
| IMR factor 1: recovery | |||||
| Model 1 | 2 381.49*** | ||||
| Model 2 | 2 242.04*** | 760.912*** | 5247.56*** | 0.1336 | 7 425.19 |
| Model 3 | 2 262.65*** | 20.612*** | 7 440.01 | ||
| Model 4 | 2 265.87*** | 3.220 | 7 425.97 | ||
| IMR factor 2: management | |||||
| Model 1 | 1 615.46*** | ||||
| Model 2 | 1 562.06*** | 730.202*** | 13 254.00*** | 0.1027 | 18 956.51 |
| Model 3 | 1 676.75*** | 116.138*** | 19 039.31 | ||
| Model 4 | 1 686.10*** | 7.900** | 19 029.36 | ||
| IMR factor 3: substance | |||||
| Model 1 | 3 007.28*** | ||||
| Model 2 | 3 008.63*** | −31.728 | 208.33*** | 0.2110 | 353.79 |
| Model 3 | 3 008.63*** | 0.000 | 359.79 | ||
| Model 4 | 3 008.63*** | 2.000 | 359.79 | ||
| Client self-reported mental health recovery | |||||
| Total RMQ | |||||
| Model 1 | 1 838.62*** | ||||
| Model 2 | 1 829.48*** | 2.490 | 198.18** | 0.1534 | 322.98 |
| Model 3 | 1 829.48*** | 0.000 | 326.98 | ||
| Model 4 | 1 829.48*** | 0.000 | 326.98 | ||
Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; CFI = comparative fit indices; IMR = Illness Management and Recovery scale; LR = log-likelihood ratio; RMQ = Recovery Markers Questionnaire. Model 1 is a 2-level variance components model including only an intercept, patient identifier, a repeated assessment-level residual error term, and the patient propensity score. Model 2 is a 2-level model wherein the days since baseline assessment, treatment group condition, and the treatment group condition by days interaction explanatory variables were introduced at the repeated assessment level. Model 3 is a 2-level model similar to model 2 with the exception that the effect of the treatment group condition was introduced as a patient-level coefficient. Model 4 is the full multivariate model. It is a 2-level model similar to model 3 with the exception that the effect of the cross-level interaction between treatment group condition and baseline assessment was introduced as a patient-level coefficient. The LR test (χ2) comparison with preceding model associated with model 4 addresses the question as to whether changes in mental health recovery over time differ between patient-centered medical home and services as usual participants.
*P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001.