Table 6.
Complete case analyses |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Age 8.5–10.5 | Informants | H1 | H2 | H3 |
NTR | m, f, t | < 0.001 | 1.000 | < 0.001 |
GenR | m, f, t | < 0.001 | 1.000 | < 0.001 |
TRAILS | s, m | 0.089 | < 0.001 | 0.910 |
YOUth | m, t | < 0.001 | 1.000 | < 0.001 |
Aggregated | < 0.001 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | |
Age 10.5–12.5 | Informants | H1 | H2 | H3 |
NTR | s, m, f, t | < 0.001 | 1.000 | < 0.001 |
GenR | m, f | 0.736 | 0.086 | 0.178 |
TRAILS | s, m | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 1.000 |
YOUth | m, t | < 0.001 | 1.000 | < 0.001 |
Aggregated | < 0.001 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | |
Analyses based on imputed data | ||||
Age 8.5–12.5 | Informants | H1 | H2 | H3 |
NTR | m, f, t | < 0.001 | 1.000 | < 0.001 |
GenR | m, f | 0.033 | < 0.001 | 0.967 |
TRAILS | s, m | 0.078 | < 0.001 | 0.922 |
Aggregated | < 0.001 | 1.000 | < 0.001 |
Note: H1: μself = μmother = μfather = μteacher ; H2: μself > μmother > μfather > μteacher ; H3: μself < μmother < μfather < μteacher. The aggregated support reflects the support for the combined partial hypotheses. To obtain the aggregated PMPs, we used the unrounded PMPs.