Table 3.

Heterogeneous variance estimates with closeness predicting spouses’ cardiometabolic similarity

	Glucose			Carbohydrate Oxidation			Fat Oxidation			SBP			DBP
Univariate	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p
Closeness	0.119	0.124	0.335	-0.213	0.106	0.044	−0.130	0.110	0.239	−0.165	0.106	0.120	−0.248	0.106	0.020
	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p
Model fit	1090.8	0.9	0.343	−73.2	4.2	0.040	−69.6	1.4	0.237	1319.3	2.5	0.114	1133.5	5.8	0.016
Adjusted	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p
Closeness	--	--	--	−0.195	0.126	0.121	−0.270	0.123	0.028	−0.096	0.123	0.435	−0.100	0.147	0.496
Activity Concordance	--	--	--	0.154	0.073	0.035	0.013	0.060	0.028	0.054	0.079	0.497	0.022	0.076	0.774
Diet Concordance	--	--	--	0.034	0.021	0.098	0.049	0.022	0.023	−0.023	0.023	0.326	0.0064	0.024	0.794
Sleep Concordance	--	--	--	−0.065	0.257	0.801	−0.529	0.276	0.055	0.195	0.223	0.382	0.301	0.214	0.160
	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p
Model fit	--	--	--	−71.9	1.3	0.729	−68.1	1.5	0.682	1256.8	62.5	<.0001	1074.9	58.6	<.0001

Note. All results presented in the table are variance estimates. All models included the fixed effects of the individual’s age, abdominal fat, sex, and study visit, but these effects are not depicted. Couple closeness was examined as a predictor of within-couple variance in each cardiometabolic outcome—first in a univariate model, and next in a model including activity, diet, and sleep concordance. In univariate models, log likelihood ratio tests (df=1) evaluated whether the inclusion of closeness significantly improved model fit. Fully adjusted models examined whether the effects of closeness held controlling for health behavior concordance. The fully adjusted model predicting glucose failed to converge. Log likelihood ratio tests (df=3) investigated whether the class of health behavior concordance variables improved model fit, above and beyond closeness.