基于对精神病理学经验结构研究中使用的主要模型的可靠性和有效性的比较的三个建议。

IF 4.6 1区 心理学 Q1 Medicine
Miriam K Forbes, Ashley L Greene, Holly F Levin-Aspenson, Ashley L Watts, Michael Hallquist, Benjamin B Lahey, Kristian E Markon, Christopher J Patrick, Jennifer L Tackett, Irwin D Waldman, Aidan G C Wright, Avshalom Caspi, Masha Ivanova, Roman Kotov, Douglas B Samuel, Nicholas R Eaton, Robert F Krueger
{"title":"基于对精神病理学经验结构研究中使用的主要模型的可靠性和有效性的比较的三个建议。","authors":"Miriam K Forbes,&nbsp;Ashley L Greene,&nbsp;Holly F Levin-Aspenson,&nbsp;Ashley L Watts,&nbsp;Michael Hallquist,&nbsp;Benjamin B Lahey,&nbsp;Kristian E Markon,&nbsp;Christopher J Patrick,&nbsp;Jennifer L Tackett,&nbsp;Irwin D Waldman,&nbsp;Aidan G C Wright,&nbsp;Avshalom Caspi,&nbsp;Masha Ivanova,&nbsp;Roman Kotov,&nbsp;Douglas B Samuel,&nbsp;Nicholas R Eaton,&nbsp;Robert F Krueger","doi":"10.1037/abn0000533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 (<i>n</i> = 43,093 and <i>n</i> = 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 (<i>p</i> 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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":14793,"journal":{"name":"Journal of abnormal psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"42","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Three recommendations based on a comparison of the reliability and validity of the predominant models used in research on the empirical structure of psychopathology.\",\"authors\":\"Miriam K Forbes,&nbsp;Ashley L Greene,&nbsp;Holly F Levin-Aspenson,&nbsp;Ashley L Watts,&nbsp;Michael Hallquist,&nbsp;Benjamin B Lahey,&nbsp;Kristian E Markon,&nbsp;Christopher J Patrick,&nbsp;Jennifer L Tackett,&nbsp;Irwin D Waldman,&nbsp;Aidan G C Wright,&nbsp;Avshalom Caspi,&nbsp;Masha Ivanova,&nbsp;Roman Kotov,&nbsp;Douglas B Samuel,&nbsp;Nicholas R Eaton,&nbsp;Robert F Krueger\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/abn0000533\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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 (<i>n</i> = 43,093 and <i>n</i> = 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 (<i>p</i> 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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14793,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of abnormal psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"42\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of abnormal psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000533\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of abnormal psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000533","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 42

摘要

本研究从结构效度(模型拟合和因子信度)、纵向测量不变性、与重要结果相关的并发效度和前瞻性预测效度、个体因子得分剖面的纵向一致性等方面比较了精神病理学结构研究中常用的主要模型(即相关因子模型、高阶模型和双因子模型)。精神病理学一般因素的两个更简单的操作化也被检查-单因素模型和诊断计数。模型的估计是基于结构化临床访谈诊断的两个纵向波的全国代表性数据(n = 43,093和n = 34,653)。需要包含较窄因素(恐惧、痛苦和外化)的模型来捕捉观察到的数据的多维性。在相关因子和高阶模型中,这些较窄的因子是可靠的,随着时间的推移在很大程度上是不变的,与适应功能的指标有一致的关联,并且随着时间的推移在个体内具有适度的稳定性。相比之下,双因素模型中的恐惧和痛苦特定因素在整个分析中没有显示出良好的信度或效度。值得注意的是,无论使用高阶模型还是双因素模型,精神病理学的一般因素(p因素)在信度和效度测试中表现相似;除了模型拟合外,最简单的(单因素)模型在大多数测试中也具有可比性。鉴于分类诊断的局限性,使用量纲测量重复这些分析将是重要的。我们得出的结论是,当旨在了解精神病理学的结构和相关因素时,重要的是(a)超越模型拟合指数来选择不同的模型,(b)直接检查潜在变量的可靠性,以及(c)在分离和解释特定精神病理学因素的独特影响时要谨慎,无论使用哪种模型。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Three recommendations based on a comparison of the reliability and validity of the predominant models used in research on the empirical structure of psychopathology.

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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Abnormal Psychology® publishes articles on basic research and theory in the broad field of abnormal behavior, its determinants, and its correlates. The following general topics fall within its area of major focus: - psychopathology—its etiology, development, symptomatology, and course; - normal processes in abnormal individuals; - pathological or atypical features of the behavior of normal persons; - experimental studies, with human or animal subjects, relating to disordered emotional behavior or pathology; - sociocultural effects on pathological processes, including the influence of gender and ethnicity; and - tests of hypotheses from psychological theories that relate to abnormal behavior.
×
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