Application of the dyadic data analysis in behavioral medicine research: marital satisfaction and anxiety in infertile couples

Table 3 Results of the APIM framework relating anxiety to marital satisfaction among infertile couples

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE
Actor effects
A_M → MS_M	−.457^***	.122	−.451^***a	.083	−.485^***	.112	−.451^***c	.083
A_W → MS_W	−.445^***	.122	−.451^***a	.083	−.418^***	.113	−.451^***c	.083
Partner effects
A_W → MS_M	−.254^*	.117	−.257^*	.108	−.206^*b	.083	−.207^*d	.083
A_M → MS_W	−.150	.127	−.147	.116	−.206^*b	.083	−.207^*d	.083
Covariances
A_M ↔ A_W	3.988^*	1.638	3.988^*	1.638	3.988^*	1.638	3.988^*	1.638
Res MS_M ↔ Res MS_W	13.997^***	3.421	13.999^***	3.422	14.040^***	3.429	13.976^***	3.425
Model fit
χ²	–		.004		.334		.532
df	–		1		1		2
P	–		.947		.563		.766
χ²/df	–		.004		.334		.266
CFI	–		1.000		1.000		1.000
TLI	–		1.000		1.000		1.000
RMSEA	–		<.001		<.001		<.001
SRMR	–		.002		.012		.023

Res MS_M and Res MS_W are residual terms of MS_M and MS_W, respectively
Note. n = 141. SE Standard Error, CFI Comparative Fit Index, TLI Tucker–Lewis Index, RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, SRMR Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
A_M Men’s Anxiety, A_W Women’s Anxiety, MS_M Men’s Marital Satisfaction, MS_W Women’s Marital Satisfaction
^*P < 0.05; ^**P < 0.01; ^***P < 0.001
^abcdThese coefficients were constrained to be equal

ISSN: 1471-2288