The Replicability and Generalizability of Internalizing Symptom Networks Across Five Samples
The Replicability and Generalizability of Internalizing Symptom Networks Across Five Samples
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/abn0000496
复制
发表时间：
2020-02-01
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Shankman, Stewart A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Funkhouser, Carter J.;Correa, Kelly A.;Shankman, Stewart A.
近年来，网络分析在精神病理学研究中的受欢迎程度呈指数级增长。然而，很少有研究检验横断面精神病理学网络模型的可重复性，以及那些使用单一项目而不是多项目量表来描述症状的模型。因此，本研究使用抑郁和焦虑症状量表(抑郁和焦虑症状问卷，一个因素分析得出的个体内化症状的衡量标准)，在5个样本(总N=2573)内和跨样本检验了内化症状的规则化偏相关网络的重复性和普适性。由于不同的度量可能会产生关于网络参数可复制性的不同结论，因此我们检查了网络之间的全局和特定相似性度量。非临床样本内部和非临床样本之间的相关性显示，临床和非临床样本在网络结构(r(S)S=.53-.87)和中心性强度(r(S)S=.37-.86)方面具有相当大的相似性，但在网络结构(r(S)S=.36-.66)和中心性(r(S)S=0.04-.54)方面较弱相似。全球强度(即连接性)在所有5个网络上没有显著差异，只有少数边(0-5.5%)在网络之间存在显著差异。具体的相似性度量表明，平均而言，在所有5个样本内部和之间，大约80%的边缘得到了一致的估计。最核心的症状(即烦躁不安)在样本内和样本之间是一致的，但在中心性排名顺序上很少有其他匹配。总而言之，从非临床样本估计的网络结构、单个边缘的存在和迹象以及内化症状网络内和跨内化症状网络的最中心症状有相当大的相似之处，但全局度量表明网络结构和症状中心性从非临床样本到临床样本具有弱到中等的概括性。
The popularity of network analysis in psychopathology research has increased exponentially in recent years. Yet, little research has examined the replicability of cross-sectional psychopathology network models, and those that have used single items for symptoms rather than multiitem scales. The present study therefore examined the replicability and generalizability of regularized partial correlation networks of internalizing symptoms within and across 5 samples (total N = 2,573) using the Inventory for Depression and Anxiety Symptoms, a factor analytically derived measure of individual internalizing symptoms. As different metrics may yield different conclusions about the replicability of network parameters, we examined both global and specific metrics of similarity between networks. Correlations within and between nonclinical samples suggested considerable global similarities in network structure (r(s)s =.53-.87) and centrality strength (r(s)s =.37-.86), but weaker similarities in network structure (r(s)s =.36-.66) and centrality (r(s)s =.04-.54) between clinical and nonclinical samples. Global strength (i.e., connectivity) did not significantly differ across all 5 networks and few edges (0-5.5%) significantly differed between networks. Specific metrics of similarity indicated that, on average, approximately 80% of edges were consistently estimated within and between all 5 samples. The most central symptom (i.e., dysphoria) was consistent within and across samples, but there were few other matches in centrality rank-order. In sum, there were considerable similarities in network structure, the presence and sign of individual edges, and the most central symptom within and across internalizing symptom networks estimated from nonclinical samples, but global metrics suggested network structure and symptom centrality had weak to moderate generalizability from nonclinical to clinical samples.