Table 2.
Comparison of the goodness-of-fit of the three candidate models
| Model | Boys | Girls | ||||||||
| RSD | AIC | BIC | Delta AIC | Log-likelihood | RSD | AIC | BIC | Delta AIC | Log-likelihood | |
| Weight | ||||||||||
| Jenss-Bayley | 0.46 | 5251 | 5300 | −2613 | 0.46 | 5452 | 5503 | −2714 | ||
| Reed | 0.52 | 5387 | 5424 | 136 | −2684 | 0.51 | 5581 | 5619 | 129 | −2781 |
| Adapted Gompertz | 0.49 | 5368 | 5405 | 117 | −2675 | 0.49 | 5587 | 5625 | 135 | −2784 |
| Length/height | ||||||||||
| Jenss-Bayley | 1.90 | 11 786 | 11 823 | −5884 | 2.00 | 12 711 | 12 749 | −6347 | ||
| Reed | 2.00 | 11 794 | 11 831 | 08 | −5888 | 2.10 | 12 739 | 12 777 | 28 | −6360 |
| Adapted Gompertz | 1.95 | 11 792 | 11 829 | 06 | −5887 | 2.10 | 12 743 | 12 781 | 32 | −6362 |
AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; RSD, residual SD.