Behavior Genetics

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 653–665 | Cite as

Cholesky Problems

Article

Behavioral geneticists commonly parameterize a genetic or environmental covariance matrix as the product of a lower diagonal matrix postmultiplied by its transpose—a technique commonly referred to as “fitting a Cholesky.” Here, simulations demonstrate that this procedure is sometimes valid, but at other times: (1) may not produce fit statistics that are distributed as a χ2; or (2) if the distribution of the fit statistic is χ2, then the degrees of freedom (df) are not always the difference between the number of parameters in the general model less the number of parameters in a constrained model. It is hypothesized that the problem is related to the fact that the Cholesky parameterization requires that the covariance matrix formed by the product be either positive definite or singular. Even though a population covariance matrix may be positive definite, the combination of sampling error and the derived—as opposed to directly observed—nature of genetic and environmental matrices allow matrices that are negative (semi) definite. When this occurs, fitting a Cholesky constrains the numerical area of search and compromises the maximum likelihood theory currently used in behavioral genetics. Until the reasons for this phenomenon are understood and satisfactory solutions are developed, those who fit Cholesky matrices face the burden of demonstrating the validity of their fit statistics and the df for model comparisons. An interim remedy is proposed—fit an unconstrained model and a Cholesky model, and if the two differ, then report the difference in fit statistics and parameter estimates. Cholesky problems are a matter of degree, not of kind. Thus, some Cholesky solutions will differ trivially from the unconstrained solutions, and the importance of the problems must be assessed by how often the two lead to different substantive interpretation of the results. If followed, the proposed interim remedy will develop a body of empirical data to assess the extent to which Cholesky problems are important substantive issues versus statistical curiosities.

Keywords

Cholesky developmental genetics lower diagonal matrix matrix factorization model fitting quantitative genetics statistics twins 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Carey, G., Goldsmith, H. H., Tellegen, A., Gottesman, I. I. 1978Genetics and personality inventories: the limits of replication with twin dataBehav. Genet.8299313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Eaves, L. J., Eysenck, H. J., Martin, N. G. 1989Genes, Culture and Personality: An Empirical ApproachAcademic PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Fulker, D. W. 1978Multivariate extensions of a biometrical model of twin dataProgr. Clin. Biol. Res.24A217236Google Scholar
  4. Gough, H. B. 1964CPI ManualConsulting Psychologists PressPalo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. Loehlin, J. C. 1992Genes and Environment in Personality DevelopmentSageThousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  6. Loehlin, J. C., Nichols, R. C. 1976Heredity, Environment, and PersonalityUniversity of Texas PressAustin, TXGoogle Scholar
  7. Martin, N. G., Jardine, R., Eaves, L. J. 1984Is there only one set of genes for different abilities? A reanalysis of the National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test dataBehav. Genet.14355370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Neale, M. C., Miller, M. B. 1997The use of likelihood-based confidence intervals in genetic modelsBehav. Genet.27113120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Self, S. G., Liang, K. Y. 1987Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators and likelihood ratio tests under nonstandard conditionsJ. Am. Stat. Assoc.82605610Google Scholar
  10. Sham, P. C., Curtis, D., MacClean, C. J. 1996Likelihood ratio tests for linkage and linkage disequilibrium: Asymptotic distribution and powerAm. J. Human Genet.5810931095Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Institute for Behavioral GeneticsUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations