specifies the model for sibling interactions shown in
Figure 8.2.
By varying the script, the standard E, AE, CE, and ACE
models may be fitted to the data to obtain the results shown in
Table 8.1.
| Parameter | ||||||
| Fit statistics | Estimates | |||||
| Model | df | AIC | a | c | e | |
| AE | 4 | 32.57 | 24.6 | .78 | -- | .33 |
| CE | 4 | 29.80 | 21.8 | -- | .78 | .43 |
| ACE | 3 | 4.95 | -1.0 | .50 | .64 | .34 |
. But is the ACE
model the best in this case? We observe that the pooled individual
phenotypic variances of the MZ twins (0.915) are greater than those of
the DZ twins (0.689) and, although this discrepancy is apparently not
statistically significant with our sample sizes (171 MZ pairs and 194
DZ pairs), we might be motivated to consider sibling interactions.
Fitting the model shown in Figure 8.2 yields results given in
Table 8.2.
| Fit statistics | Parameter estimates | ||||||
| Model | df | AIC | a | c | e | s | |
| E+s | 4 | 29.80 | 21.8 | -- | -- | * | * |
| AE+s | 3 | 1.80 | -4.2 | .611 | -- | .419 | .230 |
| CE+s | 3 | 29.80 | 21.8 | -- | .882 | .282 | -.101 |
| ACE+s | 2 | 1.80 | -2.2 | .611 | .000 |
.419 | .230 |
| * Indicates parameters out of bounds. | |||||||