Skip to main content
. 2015 Feb 1;24(11):1381–1388. doi: 10.1007/s00787-015-0680-x

Table 3.

Genetic model fitting results

Model −2LL df c.t.m. χ 2 Δdf p
Optimism_6 items 1 Saturated 30,535.02 6,040
2 ACE with sex differences 30,535.46 6,041 1 .44 1 .51
3 ADE with sex differences 30,535.50 6,041 1 .48 1 .49
4 ACE no sex differences 30,541.17 6,044 2 5.71 3 .13
5 ADE no sex differences 30,541.14 6,044 3 5.65 3 .13
6 AE no sex differences 30,541.17 6,045 4 .0 1 1.0
7 AE no sex differences 30,541.17 6,045 5 .03 1 1.0
Optimism_3 items 1 Saturated 23,889.97 6,040
2 ACE with sex differences 23,892.8 6,041 1 2.83 1 .09
3 ADE with sex differences 23,893.99 6,041 1 4.02 1 .05
4 ACE no sex differences 23,900.47 6,044 2 7.67 3 .05
5 ADE no sex differences 23,900.48 6,044 3 6.49 3 .09
6 AE no sex differences 23,900.48 6,045 4 .01 1 1.0
7 AE no sex differences 23,900.48 6,045 5 .0 1 1.0
Pessimism_3 items 1 Saturated 25,471.47 6,040
2 ACE sex differences 25,472.14 6,041 1 .67 1 .41
3 ADE with sex differences 25,472.01 6,041 1 .54 1 .46
4 ACE no sex differences 25,474.97 6,044 2 2.83 3 .42
5 ADE no sex differences 25,474.84 6,044 3 2.83 3 .42
6 AE no sex differences 25,474.97 6,045 4 .0 1 1.0
7 AE no sex differences 25,474.97 6,045 5 .13 1 1.0

c.t.m compared to model