Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Child Dev. 2015 Jul 16;86(5):1538–1556. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12394

Table 4.

Multivariate Model Fit and Parameter Estimates

Best-Fitting Full and Final Models (Observed)
Model −2LL df Δ−2LL Δ df p AIC
Bivariate Cholesky (Full) 5444.50 2460 524.50
Bivariate Cholesky (Final) 5445.51 2464 1.17 4 .88 517.67

Model Comparisons (Mother-Report)
Model −2LL df Δ−2LL Δ df p AIC

Trivariate Cholesky (Full) 8700.50 3882 936.50
Trivariate Cholesky (Final) 8709.62 3887 9.11 5 .10 935.62
IPM (Full) 8700.64 3882 0 936.64
IPM (Final) 8709.93 3888 9.29 6 .16 933.93
CPM (Full) 8722.56 3886 21.92 4 < .001 950.56
CPM (Final) 8722.56 3890 0 4 .99 942.56

Model Comparisons (Father-Report)

Model −2LL df Δ−2LL Δ df p AIC

Trivariate Cholesky (Full) 6873.51 3258 357.51
Trivariate Cholesky (Final) 6885.82 3266 12.31 8 .14 353.82
IPM (Full) 6876.27 3258 0 360.27
IPM (Final) 6889.34 3267 13.07 9 .16 355.34
CPM (Full) 6881.93 3262 5.67 4 .23 357.93
CPM (Final) 6885.13 2367 8.87 9 .45 351.13
Parameter Estimates for Best-fitting Final Models
Observed
Model Scale A1 C1 E1 A2 C2 E2
Bivariate Cholesky Anger .26/.47 (.37–.58) .28/.53 (.45–.62)
Sadness .06/.09 (.05–.15) .09/.16 (.08–.23) .45/.75 (.67–.85)

Mother-report
Model Scale Ac Cc Ec Au Cu Eu

Independent Pathway Model Anger .15/.17 (.09–.28) .17/.21 (.10–.33) .01/.01 (.003–.03) .28/.34 (.23–.42) .23/.27 (.23–.33)
Sadness .31/.53 (.38–.68) .10/.17 (.06–.30) .17/.29 (.25–.35)
Fear .17/.18 (.11–.29) .02/.03 (.01–.05) .56/.56 (.45–.66) .22/.24 (.20–.29)

Father-report
Model Scale Ac Cc Ec Au Cu Eu λ

Common Pathway Model NE .88 (.81–.94) .12 (.06–.19)
Anger .29/.38 (.30–.46) .18/.25 (.20–.30) .53
Sadness .08/.16 (.10–.22) .64
Fear .56/.68 (.59–.78) .16/.19 (.16–.24) .33

Note. −2LL = −2 log likelihood; df = degrees of freedom; Δ= change; p = probability; AIC = Akaike’s Information Criterion; A = additive genetic; C = common environment; D = dominant (non-additive) genetic; E = nonshared environment. −2 log likelihood values and p values are not reported for comparisons between the Cholesky decomposition and the independent pathway model because these models are not nested. A, C and E values aq2re first reported as unstandardized squared parameter estimates, followed by standardized parameter estimates, with confidence intervals for standardized parameters in parentheses. IPM = independent pathways model; CPM = common pathways model; NE = latent negative emotionality; λ = factor loadings of each phenotype on NE. See Figure 1 for clarification of A, C and E common (e.g., A1, Ac) and unique (e.g., A3, Au) latent factors. The most parsimonious final model is indicated in bold.