Table 1.
Fit statistics for biometric moderation models
| −2lnL | Model comparison | Δχ2 | Δdf | p | AIC | BIC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internalizing | |||||||
| Maternal discipline | |||||||
| 1. BivCholesky | −3812.70 | 7647 | 7698 | ||||
| 2. BivCholesky GxM | −3685.01 | Model 2 versus 1 | 127.69 | 6 | 0.00 | 7406 | 7487 |
| 3. NLMain GxM | −3685.71 | Model 3 versus 2 | 0.70 | 4 | 0.95 | 7397 | 7456 |
| 4. NL Main | −3688.55 | Model 4 versus 3 | 2.85 | 3 | 0.42 | 7397 | 7442 |
| 5. Linear Main | −3812.82 | Model 5 versus 4 | 124.27 | 1 | 0.00 | 7644 | 7685 |
| Maternal affection | |||||||
| 1. BivCholesky | −3736.41 | 7495 | 7545 | ||||
| 2. BivCholesky GxM | −3607.85 | Model 2 versus 1 | 128.57 | 6 | 0.00 | 7252 | 7333 |
| 3. NLMain GxM | −3611.88 | Model 3 versus 2 | 4.03 | 4 | 0.40 | 7250 | 7308 |
| 4. NL Main | −3616.92 | Model 4 versus 3 | 5.04 | 3 | 0.17 | 7254 | 7299 |
| 5. Linear Main | −3738.77 | Model 5 versus 4 | 121.85 | 1 | 0.00 | 7496 | 7537 |
| Paternal discipline | |||||||
| 1. BivCholesky | −3807.56 | 7637 | 7687 | ||||
| 2. BivCholesky GxM | −3663.99 | Model 2 versus 1 | 143.57 | 6 | 0.00 | 7364 | 7445 |
| 3. NLMain GxM | −3666.90 | Model 3 versus 2 | 2.91 | 4 | 0.57 | 7360 | 7418 |
| 4. NL Main | −3682.07 | Model 4 versus 3 | 15.17 | 3 | 0.00 | 7384 | 7429 |
| 5. Linear Main | −3808.85 | Model 5 versus 4 | 126.78 | 1 | 0.00 | 7636 | 7677 |
| Paternal affection | |||||||
| 1. BivCholesky | −3722.34 | 7467 | 7517 | ||||
| 2. BivCholesky GxM | −3591.48 | Model 2 versus 1 | 130.86 | 6 | 0.00 | 7219 | 7300 |
| 3. NLMain GxM | −3594.54 | Model 3 versus 2 | 3.06 | 4 | 20.55 | 7215 | 7274 |
| 4. NL Main | −3599.99 | Model 4 versus 3 | 5.45 | 3 | 0.14 | 7220 | 7265 |
| 5. Linear Main | −3723.46 | Model 5 versus 4 | 123.47 | 1 | 0.00 | 7465 | 7506 |
| Alcohol use problems | |||||||
| Maternal discipline | |||||||
| 1. BivCholesky | −3659.74 | 7341 | 7392 | ||||
| 2. BivCholesky GxM | −3551.29 | Model 2 versus 1 | 108.45 | 6 | 0.00 | 7139 | 7220 |
| 3. NLMain GxM | −3551.96 | Model 3 versus 2 | 0.67 | 4 | 0.96 | 7130 | 7189 |
| 4. NL Main | −3552.51 | Model 4 versus 3 | 0.55 | 3 | 0.91 | 7125 | 7170 |
| 5. Linear Main | −3660.24 | Model 5 versus 4 | 107.73 | 1 | 0.00 | 7339 | 7380 |
| Maternal affection | |||||||
| 1. BivCholesky | −3602.02 | 7226 | 7276 | ||||
| 2. BivCholesky GxM | −3491.12 | Model 2 versus 1 | 110.90 | 6 | 0.00 | 7018 | 7099 |
| 3. NLMain GxM | −3491.77 | Model 3 versus 2 | 0.65 | 4 | 0.40 | 7010 | 7068 |
| 4. NL Main | −3494.03 | Model 4 versus 3 | 2.25 | 3 | 0.17 | 7008 | 7053 |
| 5. Linear Main | −3602.21 | Model 5 versus 4 | 108.19 | 1 | 0.00 | 7222 | 7264 |
| Paternal discipline | |||||||
| 1. BivCholesky | −3653.88 | 7330 | 7380 | ||||
| 2. BivCholesky GxM | −3541.28 | Model 2 versus 1 | 112.60 | 6 | 0.00 | 7119 | 7200 |
| 3. NLMain GxM | −3544.40 | Model 3 versus 2 | 3.12 | 4 | 0.54 | 7115 | 7173 |
| 4. NL Main | −3544.87 | Model 4 versus 3 | 0.47 | 3 | 0.92 | 7110 | 7155 |
| 5. Linear Main | −3656.57 | Model 5 versus 4 | 111.71 | 1 | 0.00 | 7331 | 7372 |
| Paternal affection | |||||||
| 1. BivCholesky | −3578.87 | 7180 | 7230 | ||||
| 2. BivCholesky GxM | −3460.87 | Model 2 versus 1 | 118.00 | 6 | 0.00 | 6958 | 7039 |
| 3. NLMain GxM | −3461.90 | Model 3 versus 2 | 1.03 | 4 | 0.90 | 6950 | 7008 |
| 4. NL Main | −3467.60 | Model 4 versus 3 | 5.70 | 3 | 0.13 | 6955 | 7000 |
| 5. Linear Main | −3579.65 | Model 5 versus 4 | 112.05 | 1 | 0.00 | 7177 | 7218 |
Best fitting model shown in bold. BivCholesky bivariate Cholesky, BivCholesky GxM bivariate Cholesky with GxM, NL main GxM nonlinear main effects model with GxM, NL Main nonlinear main effects model, linear main linear main effects model, −2lnL −2 loglikelihood, df degrees of freedom, AIC Akaike information criterion, BIC Bayesian information criterion