Philip Hyland1, Jamie Murphy2, Mark Shevlin2, Richard P Bentall3, Thanos Karatzias4,5, Grace W K Ho6, Daniel Boduszek7,8, Eoin McElroy9. 1. Department of Psychology, Maynooth University, Kildare, Ireland. 2. School of Psychology, Ulster University, Derry, Northern Ireland. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England. 4. Edinburgh Napier University, School of Health & Social Care, Edinburgh, Scotland. 5. NHS Lothian, Rivers Centre for Traumatic Stress, Edinburgh, Scotland. 6. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, School of Nursing, Hung Hom, Hong Kong. 7. School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, England. 8. SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Katowice, Poland. 9. Department of Neuroscience, Psychology and Behaviour, University of Leicester, England.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dimensional models of psychopathology are increasingly common and there is evidence for the existence of a general dimension of psychopathology ('p'). The existing literature presents two ways to model p: as a bifactor or as a higher-order dimension. Bifactor models typically fit sample data better than higher-order models, and are often selected as better fitting alternatives but there are reasons to be cautious of such an approach to model selection. In this study the bifactor and higher-order models of p were compared in relation to associations with established risk variables for mental illness. METHODS: A trauma exposed community sample from the United Kingdom (N = 1051) completed self-report measures of 49 symptoms of psychopathology. RESULTS: A higher-order model with four first-order dimensions (Fear, Distress, Externalising and Thought Disorder) and a higher-order p dimension provided satisfactory model fit, and a bifactor representation provided superior model fit. Bifactor p and higher-order p were highly correlated (r = 0.97) indicating that both parametrisations produce near equivalent general dimensions of psychopathology. Latent variable models including predictor variables showed that the risk variables explained more variance in higher-order p than bifactor p. The higher-order model produced more interpretable associations for the first-order/specific dimensions compared to the bifactor model. CONCLUSIONS: The higher-order representation of p, as described in the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology, appears to be a more appropriate way to conceptualise the general dimension of psychopathology than the bifactor approach. The research and clinical implications of these discrepant ways of modelling p are discussed.
BACKGROUND: Dimensional models of psychopathology are increasingly common and there is evidence for the existence of a general dimension of psychopathology ('p'). The existing literature presents two ways to model p: as a bifactor or as a higher-order dimension. Bifactor models typically fit sample data better than higher-order models, and are often selected as better fitting alternatives but there are reasons to be cautious of such an approach to model selection. In this study the bifactor and higher-order models of p were compared in relation to associations with established risk variables for mental illness. METHODS: A trauma exposed community sample from the United Kingdom (N = 1051) completed self-report measures of 49 symptoms of psychopathology. RESULTS: A higher-order model with four first-order dimensions (Fear, Distress, Externalising and Thought Disorder) and a higher-order p dimension provided satisfactory model fit, and a bifactor representation provided superior model fit. Bifactor p and higher-order p were highly correlated (r = 0.97) indicating that both parametrisations produce near equivalent general dimensions of psychopathology. Latent variable models including predictor variables showed that the risk variables explained more variance in higher-order p than bifactor p. The higher-order model produced more interpretable associations for the first-order/specific dimensions compared to the bifactor model. CONCLUSIONS: The higher-order representation of p, as described in the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology, appears to be a more appropriate way to conceptualise the general dimension of psychopathology than the bifactor approach. The research and clinical implications of these discrepant ways of modelling p are discussed.
Authors: Carter J Funkhouser; Kelly A Correa; Allison M Letkiewicz; Eugene M Cozza; Ryne Estabrook; Stewart A Shankman Journal: J Abnorm Psychol Date: 2021-08
Authors: Lindsay D Nelson; Mark D Kramer; Keanan J Joyner; Christopher J Patrick; Murray B Stein; Nancy Temkin; Harvey S Levin; John Whyte; Amy J Markowitz; Joseph Giacino; Geoffrey T Manley Journal: J Abnorm Psychol Date: 2021-06-10