Criterion Validity and Relationships between Alternative Hierarchical Dimensional Models of General and Specific Psychopathology (original) (raw)
Related papers
2020
The present study compared the primary models used in research on the structure of psychopathology (i.e., correlated factor, higher-order, and bifactor models) in terms of structural validity (model fit and factor reliability), longitudinal measurement invariance, concurrent and prospective predictive validity in relation to important outcomes, and longitudinal consistency in individuals’ factor score profiles. Two simpler operationalizations of a general factor of psychopathology were also examined—a single-factor model and a count of diagnoses. Models were estimated based on structured clinical interview diagnoses in two longitudinal waves of nationally representative data from the United States (n = 43,093 and n = 34,653). Models that included narrower factors (fear, distress, and externalizing) were needed to capture the observed multidimensionality of the data. In the correlated factor and higher-order models these narrower factors were reliable, largely invariant over time, ha...
Riskier Tests of the Validity of Bifactor Models of Psychopathology
2019
We advanced several “riskier tests” of the validity of bifactor models of psychopathology, which included that the general and specific factors should be reliable and well-represented by their indicators, and that including a general factor should improve the correlated factor model’s external validity. We compared bifactor and correlated factors models using data from a community sample of youth (N=2498) whose parents provided ratings on psychopathology and external criteria (i.e., temperament, aggression, antisociality). Bifactor models tended to yield either general or specific factors that were unstable and difficult to interpret. The general factor appeared to reflect a differentially-weighted amalgam of psychopathology rather than a liability for psychopathology broadly construed. With rare exceptions, bifactor models did not explain additional variance in psychopathology symptom dimensions or external criteria compared with correlated factors models. Together, our findings ca...
Journal of personality assessment, 2018
Whether or not importance should be placed on an all-encompassing general factor of psychopathology (or p factor) in classifying, researching, diagnosing, and treating psychiatric disorders depends (among other issues) on the extent to which comorbidity is symptom-general rather than staying largely within the confines of narrower transdiagnostic factors such as internalizing and externalizing. In this study, we compared three methods of estimating p factor strength. We compared omega hierarchical and explained common variance calculated from confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) bifactor models with maximum likelihood (ML) estimation, from exploratory structural equation modeling/exploratory factor analysis models with a bifactor rotation, and from Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM) bifactor models. Our simulation results suggested that BSEM with small variance priors on secondary loadings might be the preferred option. However, CFA with ML also performed well provided secon...
The structure of psychopathology: Toward an expanded quantitative empirical model
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2013
There has been substantial recent interest in the development of a quantitative, empirically based model of psychopathology. However, the majority of pertinent research has focused on analyses of diagnoses, as described in current official nosologies. This is a significant limitation because existing diagnostic categories are often heterogeneous. In the current research, we aimed to redress this limitation of the existing literature, and to directly compare the fit of categorical, continuous, and hybrid (i.e., combined categorical and continuous) models of syndromes derived from indicators more fine-grained than diagnoses. We analyzed data from a large representative epidemiologic sample (the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing; N ϭ 8,841). Continuous models provided the best fit for each syndrome we observed (distress, obsessive compulsivity, fear, alcohol problems, drug problems, and psychotic experiences). In addition, the best fitting higher-order model of these syndromes grouped them into three broad spectra: Internalizing, Externalizing, and Psychotic Experiences. We discuss these results in terms of future efforts to refine emerging empirically based, dimensional-spectrum model of psychopathology, and to use the model to frame psychopathology research more broadly.
Testing Structural Models of DSM-IV Symptoms of Common Forms of Child and Adolescent Psychopathology
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 2008
Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) symptoms of common mental disorders derived from structured interviews of a representative sample of 4,049 twin children and adolescents and their adult caretakers. A dimensional model based on the assignment of symptoms to syndromes in DSM-IV fit better than alternative models, but some dimensions were highly correlated. Modest sex and age differences in factor loadings and correlations were found that suggest that the dimensions of psychopathology are stable across sex and age, but slightly more differentiated at older ages and in males. The dimensions of symptoms were found to be hierarchically organized within higher-order "externalizing" and "internalizing" dimensions, which accounted for much of their variance. Major depression and generalized anxiety disorder were substantially correlated with both the "externalizing" dimension and the "internalizing" dimension, however, suggesting the need to reconceptualize the nature of these higher-order dimensions.
Recent progress toward the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders includes a proposed quantitative hierarchical structure of internalizing pathology with substantial, supportive evidence (D. Watson, 2005). Questions about such a taxonomic shift remain, however, particularly regarding how best to account for and use existing diagnostic categories and models of personality structure. In this study, the authors use a large sample of psychiatric patients with internalizing diagnoses (N 1,319) as well as a community sample (N 856) to answer some of these questions. Specifically, the authors investigate how the diagnoses of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and bipolar disorder compare with the other internalizing categories at successive levels of the personality hierarchy. Results suggest unique profiles for bipolar disorder and OCD and highlight the important contribution of a 5-factor model of personality in conceptualizing internal-izing pathology. Implications for personality-psychopathology models and research on personality structure are discussed.
In the field of psychopathology, there is high comorbidity between different disorders. Traditionally , support for two broad correlated dimensions of internalizing and externalizing symptoms has consistently emerged for children and adolescents. To date, oblique 2 and 3 first-order factor models (factors for externalizing and internalizing, and fear, distress, and externalizing) and bi-factor models with the corresponding two and three group factors have been suggested for common internalizing and eternalizing child and adolescent disorders. The present study used confirmatory factor analyses to examine the relative support for these models in adolescents (≥ 12 to 18 years; N = 866) and children (6 to < 12 years; N = 1233) and the reliability and convergent and divergent validities of the psychopathology factor (P-factor) and group factors in the optimum bi-factor model. All participants were from a clinic and underwent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition clinical diagnosis. The findings showed that the bi-factor model with two group factors (internalizing and externalizing) was the optimum model for both children and adolescents. For both groups, findings showed relatively higher reliability for the P-factor than the group factors, although the externalizing group factor showed substantial reliability in adolescents, and both the externalizing and internalizing group factors also showed substantial reliability in children. The factors of the optimum bi-factor model also showed good convergent and discriminant validities. The implications for theory and clinical and research practice related to psychopathology are discussed.
Journal of abnormal psychology, 2017
The reliability and validity of traditional taxonomies are limited by arbitrary boundaries between psychopathology and normality, often unclear boundaries between disorders, frequent disorder co-occurrence, heterogeneity within disorders, and diagnostic instability. These taxonomies went beyond evidence available on the structure of psychopathology and were shaped by a variety of other considerations, which may explain the aforementioned shortcomings. The Hierarchical Taxonomy Of Psychopathology (HiTOP) model has emerged as a research effort to address these problems. It constructs psychopathological syndromes and their components/subtypes based on the observed covariation of symptoms, grouping related symptoms together and thus reducing heterogeneity. It also combines co-occurring syndromes into spectra, thereby mapping out comorbidity. Moreover, it characterizes these phenomena dimensionally, which addresses boundary problems and diagnostic instability. Here, we review the develop...
Assessment
Symmetrical bifactor models are frequently applied to diverse symptoms of psychopathology to identify a general P factor. This factor is assumed to mark shared liability across all psychopathology dimensions and mental disorders. Despite their popularity, however, symmetrical bifactor models of P often yield anomalous results, including but not limited to nonsignificant or negative specific factor variances and nonsignificant or negative factor loadings. To date, these anomalies have often been treated as nuisances to be explained away. In this article, we demonstrate why these anomalies alter the substantive meaning of P such that it (a) does not reflect general liability to psychopathology and (b) differs in meaning across studies. We then describe an alternative modeling framework, the bifactor-( S−1) approach. This method avoids anomalous results, provides a framework for explaining unexpected findings in published symmetrical bifactor studies, and yields a well-defined general ...