Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Methods. 2015 Aug 3;20(4):407–421. doi: 10.1037/met0000043

Table 5.

Comparison of Fit for Models in Example 2

Stable
Group
Acute-
Effects
Model (9) 		Stable Group
Cummulative-
Effects
Model (10) 		Stable Group
Cummulative-
Effects
Model (11) 		Dynamic Group Acute-Effects
Model (9) with a covariance structure
for Σc00
CS AR SB-2
Total # of parameters 13 13 13 14 14 15
# of Random parameters 5 5 5 6 6 7
Model Fit
−2 RES LL 568.81 569.18 569.47 566.78 564.99 564.94
AIC 578.81 579.18 579.47 578.78 576.99 578.94
AICC 578.95 579.32 579.61 578.98 577.19 579.20
BIC 599.15 599.52 599.81 603.19 601.40 607.42

Note: The model with unstructured covariance matrix did not converge and the model with a toeplitz structure yielded a non-positive definite G matrix, therefore the model fit for these models are not reported.

RES LL= Residual Log Likelihood, AIC=Akaike’s Information Criterion, AICC= Akaike’s Information Criterion Finite Sample Correction, BIC= Bayesian Information Criterion, CS=compound symmetry, AR=First-Order Autoregressive, SB-2= Stabilized Banded-Lag 2.