在精神病理学的不同结构模型中裁决的建议

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
I. Waldman, C. King, Holly E. Poore, Justin M Luningham, Richard M. Zinbarg, R. Krueger, K. Markon, M. Bornovalova, M. Chmielewski, C. Conway, M. Dretsch, N. Eaton, M. Forbes, K. Forbush, K. Naragon-Gainey, A. Greene, J. Haltigan, M. Ivanova, Keanan J. Joyner, K. Keyes, K. King, R. Kotov, H. Levin-Aspenson, T. Olino, Jason A. Oliver, C. Patrick, D. Preece, L. Rutter, M. Sellbom, Susan C. South, N. Wagner, Ashley L. Watts, Sylia Wilson, A. Wright, D. Zald
{"title":"在精神病理学的不同结构模型中裁决的建议","authors":"I. Waldman, C. King, Holly E. Poore, Justin M Luningham, Richard M. Zinbarg, R. Krueger, K. Markon, M. Bornovalova, M. Chmielewski, C. Conway, M. Dretsch, N. Eaton, M. Forbes, K. Forbush, K. Naragon-Gainey, A. Greene, J. Haltigan, M. Ivanova, Keanan J. Joyner, K. Keyes, K. King, R. Kotov, H. Levin-Aspenson, T. Olino, Jason A. Oliver, C. Patrick, D. Preece, L. Rutter, M. Sellbom, Susan C. South, N. Wagner, Ashley L. Watts, Sylia Wilson, A. Wright, D. Zald","doi":"10.1177/21677026221144256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Historically, researchers have proposed higher-order factors to explicate the structure of psychopathology, including Externalizing, Internalizing, Fear, Distress, Thought Disorder, and a general factor. Despite extensive research in this domain, the underlying structure of psychopathology remains unresolved. Here, we examine several issues in adjudicating among structural models of psychopathology. Using simulations and analyses of the extant literature, we contrast the model-based reliability of alternative structural models of psychopathology and highlight shortcomings of conventional model-fit indices for such adjudication. We propose alternative criteria for evaluating and contrasting competing structural models, including various model characteristics (e.g., the magnitude and consistency of factor loadings and their precision), the consistency and sensitivity of factors to their constituent indicators, and the variance explained in and patterns of associations with relevant variables. Using these criteria as adjuncts to conventional fit indices should become standard practice and will greatly facilitate adjudication among alternative structural models of psychopathology.","PeriodicalId":54234,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychological Science","volume":"19 1","pages":"616 - 640"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Recommendations for Adjudicating Among Alternative Structural Models of Psychopathology\",\"authors\":\"I. Waldman, C. King, Holly E. Poore, Justin M Luningham, Richard M. Zinbarg, R. Krueger, K. Markon, M. Bornovalova, M. Chmielewski, C. Conway, M. Dretsch, N. Eaton, M. Forbes, K. Forbush, K. Naragon-Gainey, A. Greene, J. Haltigan, M. Ivanova, Keanan J. Joyner, K. Keyes, K. King, R. Kotov, H. Levin-Aspenson, T. Olino, Jason A. Oliver, C. Patrick, D. Preece, L. Rutter, M. Sellbom, Susan C. South, N. Wagner, Ashley L. Watts, Sylia Wilson, A. Wright, D. Zald\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/21677026221144256\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Historically, researchers have proposed higher-order factors to explicate the structure of psychopathology, including Externalizing, Internalizing, Fear, Distress, Thought Disorder, and a general factor. Despite extensive research in this domain, the underlying structure of psychopathology remains unresolved. Here, we examine several issues in adjudicating among structural models of psychopathology. Using simulations and analyses of the extant literature, we contrast the model-based reliability of alternative structural models of psychopathology and highlight shortcomings of conventional model-fit indices for such adjudication. We propose alternative criteria for evaluating and contrasting competing structural models, including various model characteristics (e.g., the magnitude and consistency of factor loadings and their precision), the consistency and sensitivity of factors to their constituent indicators, and the variance explained in and patterns of associations with relevant variables. Using these criteria as adjuncts to conventional fit indices should become standard practice and will greatly facilitate adjudication among alternative structural models of psychopathology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychological Science\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"616 - 640\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychological Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026221144256\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026221144256","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

历史上,研究人员提出了高阶因素来解释精神病理的结构,包括外化、内化、恐惧、痛苦、思维障碍和一般因素。尽管在这一领域进行了广泛的研究,但精神病理学的潜在结构仍未得到解决。在这里,我们检查几个问题在裁定之间的结构模型的精神病理学。通过对现有文献的模拟和分析,我们对比了基于模型的其他精神病理学结构模型的可靠性,并强调了传统模型拟合指数在这类裁决中的缺点。我们提出了评估和对比竞争性结构模型的替代标准,包括各种模型特征(例如,因子负荷的大小和一致性及其精度),因子对其组成指标的一致性和敏感性,以及与相关变量关联的方差解释和模式。使用这些标准作为传统适合指数的辅助应该成为标准的做法,并将极大地促进在精神病理学的替代结构模型之间的裁决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Recommendations for Adjudicating Among Alternative Structural Models of Psychopathology
Historically, researchers have proposed higher-order factors to explicate the structure of psychopathology, including Externalizing, Internalizing, Fear, Distress, Thought Disorder, and a general factor. Despite extensive research in this domain, the underlying structure of psychopathology remains unresolved. Here, we examine several issues in adjudicating among structural models of psychopathology. Using simulations and analyses of the extant literature, we contrast the model-based reliability of alternative structural models of psychopathology and highlight shortcomings of conventional model-fit indices for such adjudication. We propose alternative criteria for evaluating and contrasting competing structural models, including various model characteristics (e.g., the magnitude and consistency of factor loadings and their precision), the consistency and sensitivity of factors to their constituent indicators, and the variance explained in and patterns of associations with relevant variables. Using these criteria as adjuncts to conventional fit indices should become standard practice and will greatly facilitate adjudication among alternative structural models of psychopathology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychological Science
Clinical Psychological Science Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
2.10%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: The Association for Psychological Science’s journal, Clinical Psychological Science, emerges from this confluence to provide readers with the best, most innovative research in clinical psychological science, giving researchers of all stripes a home for their work and a place in which to communicate with a broad audience of both clinical and other scientists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信