Carlos Blanco1, Melanie M Wall2, Jian-Ping He3, Robert F Krueger4, Mark Olfson2, Chelsea J Jin2, Marcy Burstein3, Kathleen R Merikangas3. 1. New York State Psychiatric Institute/Columbia University, New York City. Electronic address: cb255@columbia.edu. 2. New York State Psychiatric Institute/Columbia University, New York City. 3. Division of Intramural Research Programs, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Bethesda, MD. 4. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To construct a virtual space of common adolescent psychiatric disorders, spanned by factors reflecting major psychopathological dimensions; and to locate psychiatric disorders in that space, examine whether the major psychopathological dimensions can be hierarchically organized, and determine the distribution of the latent scores of individuals in the space spanned by those dimensions. METHOD: Exploratory factor analyses of data from the National Comorbidity Survey Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A) using the psychiatric diagnoses as indicators were used to identify the latent major psychopathological dimensions. The loadings of the disorders on those dimensions were used as coordinates to calculate the distance among disorders. The distribution of individuals in the space was based on the latent scores on the factors reflecting the major psychopathological conditions. RESULTS: A model with 3 correlated factors provided an excellent fit (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.97, Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.95, the root mean squared error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.008) for the structure of disorders and a 4-factor model could be hierarchically organized, ultimately yielding a general psychopathology factor. Distances between disorders ranged from 0.079 (between social phobia and generalized anxiety disorder [GAD]) and 1.173 (between specific phobia and conduct disorder [CD]). At the individual level, there were 546 distinct liabilities observed (22% of all 2,455 potential liabilities). CONCLUSION: A novel way of understanding psychiatric disorders in adolescents is as existing in a space with a limited number of dimensions with no disorder aligning along 1 single dimension. These dimensions are hierarchically organized, allowing analyses at different levels of organization. Furthermore, individuals with psychiatric disorders present with a broad range of liabilities, reflecting the diversity of their clinical presentations.
OBJECTIVE: To construct a virtual space of common adolescent psychiatric disorders, spanned by factors reflecting major psychopathological dimensions; and to locate psychiatric disorders in that space, examine whether the major psychopathological dimensions can be hierarchically organized, and determine the distribution of the latent scores of individuals in the space spanned by those dimensions. METHOD: Exploratory factor analyses of data from the National Comorbidity Survey Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A) using the psychiatric diagnoses as indicators were used to identify the latent major psychopathological dimensions. The loadings of the disorders on those dimensions were used as coordinates to calculate the distance among disorders. The distribution of individuals in the space was based on the latent scores on the factors reflecting the major psychopathological conditions. RESULTS: A model with 3 correlated factors provided an excellent fit (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.97, Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.95, the root mean squared error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.008) for the structure of disorders and a 4-factor model could be hierarchically organized, ultimately yielding a general psychopathology factor. Distances between disorders ranged from 0.079 (between social phobia and generalized anxiety disorder [GAD]) and 1.173 (between specific phobia and conduct disorder [CD]). At the individual level, there were 546 distinct liabilities observed (22% of all 2,455 potential liabilities). CONCLUSION: A novel way of understanding psychiatric disorders in adolescents is as existing in a space with a limited number of dimensions with no disorder aligning along 1 single dimension. These dimensions are hierarchically organized, allowing analyses at different levels of organization. Furthermore, individuals with psychiatric disorders present with a broad range of liabilities, reflecting the diversity of their clinical presentations.
Authors: E B Braaten; J Biederman; A DiMauro; E Mick; M C Monuteaux; K Muehl; S V Faraone Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2001 Impact factor: 2.576
Authors: Ezra Wegbreit; Grace K Cushman; Megan E Puzia; Alexandra B Weissman; Kerri L Kim; Angela R Laird; Daniel P Dickstein Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Dylan G Gee; Kathryn L Humphreys; Jessica Flannery; Bonnie Goff; Eva H Telzer; Mor Shapiro; Todd A Hare; Susan Y Bookheimer; Nim Tottenham Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Wilson M Compton; Beth Han; Carlos Blanco; Kimberly Johnson; Christopher M Jones Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Benjamin B Lahey; Robert F Krueger; Paul J Rathouz; Irwin D Waldman; David H Zald Journal: Psychol Bull Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 17.737
Authors: Benjamin L Hankin; Hannah R Snyder; Lauren D Gulley; Tina H Schweizer; Patricia Bijttebier; Sabine Nelis; Gim Toh; Michael W Vasey Journal: Dev Psychopathol Date: 2016-11
Authors: Hilary L Surratt; Janet K Otachi; Timothy Williams; Jennifer Gulley; A Scott Lockard; Rebecca Rains Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Roman Kotov; Katherine G Jonas; William T Carpenter; Michael N Dretsch; Nicholas R Eaton; Miriam K Forbes; Kelsie T Forbush; Kelsey Hobbs; Ulrich Reininghaus; Tim Slade; Susan C South; Matthew Sunderland; Monika A Waszczuk; Thomas A Widiger; Aidan G C Wright; David H Zald; Robert F Krueger; David Watson Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 49.548