Table 4.

Model fitting results of the bivariate models with well-being

Optimism	Base	Comparison	ep	-2LL	df	AIC	ΔLL	Δdf	p
1	ACE		22	71,574.8	14,019	43,536.8
2	ACE	AE with sex diff	16	71,591.5	14,025	43,541.5	16.7	6	0.0105
3	AE	No sex diff	10	71,622.4	14,031	43,560.4	30.9	6	< .0001

Anx-Dep symptoms	Base	Comparison	ep	-2LL	df	AIC	ΔLL	Δdf	p
1	ACE		22	85,432.1	15,241	54,950.1
2	ACE	AE with sex diff	16	85,440.7	15,247	54,946.7	8.6	6	0.1954
3	AE	No sex diff	10	85,701.5	15,253	55,195.5	260.8	6	< .0001

Aggressive behavior	Base	Comparison	ep	-2LL	df	AIC	ΔLL	Δdf	p
1	ACE		22	88,937.8	15,594	57,749.8
2	ACE	AE with sex diff	16	88,947.0	15,600	57,747.0	9.2	6	0.1638
3	AE	No sex diff	10	89,027.7	15,606	57,815.7	80.7	6	< .0001

Educational achievement	Base	Comparison	ep	-2LL	df	AIC	ΔLL	Δdf	p
1	ACE		22	79,796.7	12,554	54,688.7
2	ACE	AE with sex diff	16	79,805.8	12,560	54,685.8	9.1	6	0.1694
3	AE	No sex diff	10	79,837.6	12,566	54,705.6	31.8	6	< .0001

Base baseline model, ep estimated parameters, − 2LL = minus two times the log-likelihood, df degrees of freedom, AIC akaike information criterion, p = p-value, Anx-Dep symptoms anxious-depressed symptoms; best-fitting model in bold letters