Genetic Influences on Individual Differences in Exercise Behavior during Adolescence
Table 4
Univariate model fitting results for exercise behavior in the three-age groups.
Model
vs
-2LL
df
Δdf
AIC
13-14yr
(1) ACE: sex differences (rg estimated)
—
5482.577
2812
—
—
—
—
(2) ACE: sex differences (rg fixed at 0.5)
1
(3) ACE: no sex differences (rg fixed at 0.5)
2
.01
(4) CE: boys, ACE: girls (rg fixed at 0.5)
2
.01
(4) ACE: boys, CE: girls (rg fixed at 0.5)
2
.01
(5)AE: boys, ACE: girls (rg fixed at 0.5)
2
(5)ACE: boys, AE: girls (rg fixed at 0.5)
2
5502.504
2814
19.80
1
<.01
15.93
15-16yr
(1) ACE: sex differences (rg estimated)
—
5943.005
2986
—
—
—
—
(2) ACE: sex differences (rg fixed at 0.5)
1
(3) ACE: no sex differences (rg fixed at 0.5)
2
(4) CE: no sex differences (rg fixed at 0.5)
3
.01
(5) AE: no sex differences (rg fixed at 0.5)
3
17–19yr
(1) ACE: sex differences (rg estimated)
—
4455.979
2158
—
—
—
—
(2) ACE: sex differences (rg fixed at 0.5)
1
.99
(3) ACE: no sex differences (rg fixed at 0.5)
2
(4) CE: no sex differences (rg fixed at 0.5)
3
.01
(5) AE: no sex differences (rg fixed at 0.5)
3
.99
Note. vs: versus; -2LL: likelihood; df = degrees of freedom; = chi-square test statistic; df = degrees of freedom of test; -value; AIC = Akaike’s Information Criterion; rg = genetic correlation between DOS twins. Most parsimonious models are printed in boldface type.