Three Recommendations Based on a Comparison of the Reliability and Validity of the Predominant Models Used in Research on the Empirical Structure of Psychopathology
Three Recommendations Based on a Comparison of the Reliability and Validity of the Predominant Models Used in Research on the Empirical Structure of Psychopathology
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/abn0000533
复制
发表时间：
2021-04-01
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Krueger, Robert F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Forbes, Miriam K.;Greene, Ashley L.;Krueger, Robert F.
本研究比较了精神病理学结构研究中使用的主要模型（即，相关因素，高阶和双因素模型）的结构效度（模型拟合和因素可靠性），纵向测量不变性，同时和前瞻性预测效度的重要成果，和纵向一致性个人的因素得分概况。两个简单的操作的一般因素的精神病理学也进行了检查-一个单因素模型和诊断计数。模型是基于美国全国代表性数据（n = 43，093和n = 34，653）的两个纵向波中的结构化临床访谈诊断进行估计的。需要包括更窄的因素（恐惧、痛苦和外部化）的模型来捕捉观察到的数据的多维性。在相关因素和高阶模型中，这些较窄的因素是可靠的，随着时间的推移基本上不变，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可靠性或有效性。值得注意的是，精神病理学的一般因素（p因子）在可靠性和有效性测试中表现相似，无论使用高阶模型还是双因子模型;最简单的（单因子）模型在大多数测试中也具有可比性，但模型拟合除外。鉴于分类诊断的局限性，使用维度测量重复这些分析将是重要的。我们的结论是，当旨在了解精神病理学的结构和相关性时，重要的是（a）超越模型拟合指数来选择不同的模型，（B）直接检查潜变量的可靠性，以及（c）在隔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。
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.