Table A5.
Pt -> Ht+1 | Ht -> Pt+1 | Model fit statistics | Model comparison statistics | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variable & Model | Estimate | 95% CI | Estimate | 95% CI | −2LL | df | AIC | ΔLL | Δdf | p-value |
N & AL | ||||||||||
Baseline Model | −.06 | [−.14, .02] | .01 | [−.07, .09] | 14847.55 | 6349 | 2149.55 | |||
Model A | 0 | - | .03 | [−.04, .11] | 14849.51 | 6350 | 2149.51 | 1.96 | 1 | .162 |
Model B | −.06 | [−.14, .01] | 0 | - | 14847.66 | 6350 | 2147.66 | .11 | 1 | .739 |
E & AL | ||||||||||
Baseline Model | .10 | [−.03, .26] | .07 | [−.02, .20] | 14573.52 | 6356 | 1861.52 | |||
Model A | 0 | - | .05 | [−.04, .15] | 14575.67 | 6357 | 1861.67 | 2.15 | 1 | .142 |
Model B | .07 | [−.05, .20] | 0 | - | 14575.69 | 6357 | 1861.69 | 2.17 | 1 | .140 |
N & MFI | ||||||||||
Baseline Model | .09 | [.03, .16] | .05 | [.01, .10] | 14887.29 | 6322 | 2243.29 | |||
Model A | 0 | − | .03 | [−.01, .07] | 14895.31 | 6323 | 2249.31 | 8.02 | 1 | .005 |
Model B | .06 | [.01, .12] | 0 | - | 14892.29 | 6323 | 2246.29 | 5.00 | 1 | .025 |
E & MFI | ||||||||||
Baseline Model | −.11 | [−.21, −.01] | −.03 | [−.09, .02] | 14638.21 | 6329 | 1980.21 | |||
Model A | 0 | - | −.01 | [−.07, .04] | 14643.01 | 6330 | 1983.01 | 4.80 | 1 | .028 |
Model B | −.09 | [−.19, 0] | 0 | - | 14639.40 | 6330 | 1979.40 | 1.18 | 1 | .276 |
Note. In baseline models, the cross-effects of personality traits on health outcomes and the cross-effects of health outcomes on personality traits were allowed for free estimation. In Model A, the cross-effects of personality traits on health outcomes were constrained to zero. In Model B, the cross-effects of health outcomes on personality traits were constrained to zero. Model comparisons were made for Baseline Model vs. Model A and Baseline Model vs. Model B. N = neuroticism; E = extraversion; O = openness; AL = allostatic load; MFI = motor functioning impairment; LL = Log Likelihood; AIC = Akaike’s Information Criterion; df = degrees of freedom.