Table 2. Results of the phylogenetic confirmatory path analysis.
Different sets of models are compared (see Fig. 3).
| Model | k | q | C | p | CICc | ΔCICc | l | w |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| indirect simple | 6 | 15 | 13.029 | 0.367 | 52.824 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.853 |
| indirect complex | 4 | 17 | 9.323 | 0.316 | 56.345 | 3.520 | 0.172 | 0.147 |
| direct | 10 | 11 | 93.275 | 0.000 | 120.256 | 67.431 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| null | 15 | 6 | 113.251 | 0.000 | 126.700 | 73.875 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Notes.
Explanations
- k
- independence claims made by the model
- q
- the number of parameters
- C
- the C statistic
- p
- p-value for C
- CICc
- the C-statistic information criterion corrected for small sample sizes
- ΔCICc
- the difference in CICc with the top model
- l
- the associated relative likelihoods
- w
- CICc weights
A significant p indicates that the available evidence rejects the model.