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

Table 4 Results of the MIM framework relating anxiety to marital satisfaction among infertile couples

	Model 5		Model 6		Model 7		Model 8
	Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE
Actor effects
A_M → MS_M	−.371^**	.130	−.367^**a	.115	−.368^*	.144	−.357^**c	.115
A_W → MS_W	−.361^*	.143	−.367^**a	.115	−.349^**	.127	−.357^**c	.115
Dyadic feedback effects
MS_W → MS_M	.570^*	.253	.570^*	.249	.454^*b	.190	.457^*d	.188
MS_M → MS_W	.329	.258	.326	.257	.454^*b	.190	.457^*d	.188
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	−18.067	12.583	−17.954	12.444	−17.812	12.555	−18.065	12.418
Model fit
χ²	–		.004		.514		.532
df	–		1		1		2
P			.947		.473		.766
χ²/df	–		.004		.514		.266
CFI	–		1.000		1.000		1.000
TLI	–		1.000		1.000		1.000
RMSEA	–		<.001		<.001		<.001
SRMR	–		.002		.020		.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