Neiderhiser J M, Bussell D A, Pike A, Plomin R, Simmens S, Howe G W, Hetherington E M, Reiss D
Center for Family Research, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20037, USA.
Dev Psychol. 1999 Sep;35(5):1265-7.
This article addresses concerns raised by M. C. Neale (1999) in his commentary on the D. A. Bussell et al. (1999) Nonshared Environment in Adolescent Development (NEAD) study. These concerns fall into two categories: (a) model assumptions and sample design and (b) testing of alternative models. The validity of the assumptions of quantitative genetic models is a concern for all researchers in this area. Discussion of those assumptions in this reply is brief and focuses on those most relevant to the NEAD sample. The two alternative models proposed by Neale were designed to provide alternatives to the large shared environmental effect found in the original report of Bussell et al. Because these alternative models did not provide a better fit, the appropriateness of Bussell et al.'s basic model and the importance of shared environmental influences for explaining the association among family subsystems are supported.
本文探讨了M. C. 尼尔(1999年)在其对D. A. 巴塞尔等人(1999年)《青少年发展中的非共享环境》(NEAD)研究的评论中提出的问题。这些问题分为两类:(a)模型假设和样本设计,以及(b)替代模型的检验。定量遗传模型假设的有效性是该领域所有研究人员关注的问题。本回复中对这些假设的讨论较为简短,重点关注与NEAD样本最相关的假设。尼尔提出的两个替代模型旨在为巴塞尔等人原始报告中发现的巨大共享环境效应提供替代方案。由于这些替代模型拟合效果不佳,因此支持了巴塞尔等人基本模型的适当性以及共享环境影响对于解释家庭子系统之间关联的重要性。