Dual-factor mental health in adolescence: Comparing classification methods

Abstract

Addressing adolescent mental health difficulties often begins by first correctly identifying students who are at risk when using universal mental health screeners in the school setting. A comprehensive conceptualization of mental health may enhance school psychologists' ability to effectively understand the mental health of students they serve. The dual-factor model of mental health posits a more holistic approach to mental health by capturing subjective-wellbeing scores alongside psychopathology. When employing the dual-factor model, practitioners have various ways to classify students as at risk for mental health difficulties, including locally normed cut scores and latent profile analysis (LPA); without an empirical comparison between the two approaches, practitioners may be uninformed in their decision making. The present study surveyed 404 adolescents on subjective wellbeing and psychopathology and examined how mental health classification varied when two common dual-factor approaches were employed (i.e., locally normed cut scores and LPA). Results indicated that 71.2% of the sample were classified in the same dual-factor mental health group across the two approaches, whereas 28.8% of adolescents' mental health classifications changed. The lack of agreement between the two approaches for a sizable proportion of the present sample presents an area for future research to ensure the correct identification of at-risk students and appropriately allocate services in schools.