Journal article
Three Recommendations Based on a Comparison of the Reliability and Validity of the Predominant Models Used in Research on the Empirical Structure of Psychopathology
Journal of abnormal psychology (1965), Vol.130(3), pp.297-317
04/01/2021
DOI: 10.1037/abn0000533
PMID: 33539117
Abstract
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, had consistent associations with indicators of adaptive functioning, and had moderate stability within individuals over time. By contrast, the fear- and distress-specific factors in the bifactor model did not show good reliability or validity throughout the analyses. Notably, the general factor of psychopathology (p factor) performed similarly well across tests of reliability and validity regardless of whether the higher-order or bifactor model was used; the simplest (single factor) model was also comparable across most tests, with the exception of model fit. Given the limitations of categorical diagnoses, it will be important to repeat these analyses using dimensional measures. We conclude that when aiming to understand the structure and correlates of psychopathology it is important to (a) look beyond model fit indices to choose between different models, (b) examine the reliability of latent variables directly, and (c) be cautious when isolating and interpreting the unique effects of specific psychopathology factors, regardless of which model is used.
Details
- Title: Subtitle
- Three Recommendations Based on a Comparison of the Reliability and Validity of the Predominant Models Used in Research on the Empirical Structure of Psychopathology
- Creators
- Miriam K. Forbes - Macquarie UniversityAshley L. Greene - Stony Brook UniversityHolly F. Levin-Aspenson - University of Notre DameAshley L. Watts - University of MissouriMichael Hallquist - Pennsylvania State UniversityBenjamin B. Lahey - University of ChicagoKristian E. Markon - University of IowaChristopher J. Patrick - Florida State UniversityJennifer L. Tackett - Northwestern UniversityIrwin D. Waldman - Emory UniversityAidan G. C. Wright - University of PittsburghAvshalom Caspi - Duke UniversityMasha Ivanova - University of VermontRoman Kotov - Stony Brook UniversityDouglas B. Samuel - Purdue University West LafayetteNicholas R. Eaton - Stony Brook UniversityRobert F. Krueger - University of Minnesota
- Resource Type
- Journal article
- Publication Details
- Journal of abnormal psychology (1965), Vol.130(3), pp.297-317
- DOI
- 10.1037/abn0000533
- PMID
- 33539117
- NLM abbreviation
- J Abnorm Psychol
- ISSN
- 0021-843X
- eISSN
- 1939-1846
- Publisher
- Amer Psychological Assoc
- Number of pages
- 21
- Grant note
- R01AG053217; U19AG051426 / U.S. National Institutes of Health; United States Department of Health & Human Services; National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA Macquarie University Research Fellowship
- Language
- English
- Date published
- 04/01/2021
- Academic Unit
- Psychological and Brain Sciences
- Record Identifier
- 9984627193502771
Metrics
6 Record Views