The phrase "assortment model" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to statistics, marketing, or inventory management, where different items or options are grouped or categorized.
Example: "The assortment model helps retailers determine the optimal mix of products to offer in their stores to maximize sales."
Alternatives: "variety model" or "selection model".
To achieve its stellar growth, the company had followed a no-frills, limited assortment model and had restricted itself to limited geographies within the country.
Preference of the assortment model was based on maximum likelihood estimation.
In contrast, under the positive phenotypic assortment model mate selection is purely based on the phenotype of the spouses (i.e., similar general intelligence).
The phenotypic assortment model was slightly preferred over the social homogamy model, suggesting that assortment for intelligence is mostly due to a selection of mates on similarity in intelligence.
Under the preferred phenotypic assortment model, the variance of intelligence in adulthood was not only due to non-shared environmental (18%) and additive genetic factors (44%) but also to non-additive genetic factors (27%) and phenotypic assortment (11%).This non-additive nature of genetic influences on intelligence needs to be accommodated in future GWAS studies for intelligence.
In this second series of nested models (i.e., models PA-7 to PA-10), additive genetic factors (model PA-9: χ(1) = 116.00, p < .001) and effects of phenotypic assortment (model PA-10: χ(1) = 43.82, p < .001) were also significant.
Both assortment models are depicted in Fig. 1.
To this end, two different assortment models were fitted to the data, a social homogamy (SH) model and a phenotypic assortment (PA) model.
Parameter estimates of the full and reduced SH and PA assortment models are presented in Fig. 3.
The worsening of the model fit for both the SH and the PA model was largely attributable to observed spousal correlations being higher than spousal correlations expected under both assortment models.
However, as the difference in misfit (compared to the saturated model) between SH and PA was small (23.12 vs. 21.58), we chose to further examine the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors under both assortment models.
