Table 7 presents the model fit results for the longitudinal genetic analyses. Constraining the sex effects (differing thresholds for males and females) to be equal over the six age groups deteriorated the model fit significantly as compared to the saturated model (model 2: χ2(5) = 17.69, p = 0.003). Therefore, in subsequent models separate sex effects for the female threshold deviation from the threshold for males were retained for the different age groups.Table 7Model fit results for longitudinal models (ages 15–32)AIC/BIC−2ll#par df vs.Δχ2 Δdf p ConclusionM1. Saturated model (full ACE)−17251.01−61046.8814942.997516,103M2. Saturated model with sex effect on threshold constrained−17243.32−61059.3114960.687016,108M117.6950.003Sex by age difference in prevalenceM3a. Unique environmental simplex model with transmission + innovation−17261.23−61081.3014950.776616,112M17.7890.557Simplex structure with stable and dynamic unique environmental influences fits dataM3b. Unique environmental simplex model without transmission−17144.57−61039.2515077.436116,117M3a26.665<0.001Stable unique environmental influences present over timeM4a. Shared environmental simplex model with transmission + innovation−17277.79−61122.1414954.225616,122M3a3.45100.969Simplex structure with stable and dynamic shared environmental influences fits dataM4b. Shared environmental simplex model without innovation−17287.61−61143.3314954.395116,127M4a0.1750.999No shared environmental innovation present over timeM5a. Genetic simplex model with transmission + innovation−17295.99−61180.0914966.014116,137M4b11.62100.311Simplex structure with stable and dynamic genetic influences fits dataM5b. Genetic simplex model without innovation (final model)−17297.81−61197.2814974.193616,142M5a8.1850.147No genetic innovation present over time
