Literature DB >> 34553953

Evaluating the criterion validity of hierarchical psychopathology dimensions across models: Familial aggregation and associations with research domain criteria (sub)constructs.

Carter J Funkhouser1, Kelly A Correa1, Allison M Letkiewicz2, Eugene M Cozza2, Ryne Estabrook1, Stewart A Shankman1.   

Abstract

The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) posits that psychopathology is a hierarchy of correlated dimensions. Numerous studies have examined the validity of these dimensions using bifactor models, in which each disorder loads onto both a general and specific factor (e.g., internalizing, externalizing). Although bifactor models tend to fit better than alternative models, concerns have been raised about bifactor model selection, factor reliability, and interpretability. Therefore, we compared the reliability and validity of several higher-order HiTOP dimensions between bifactor and correlated factor models using familial aggregation and associations with Research Domain Criteria (RDoC; sub)constructs as validators. Lifetime psychopathology was assessed in a community sample (N = 504) using dimensional disorder severity scales calculated from semistructured interview data. A series of unidimensional, correlated factor, and bifactor models were fit to model several HiTOP dimensions. A bifactor model with two specific factors (internalizing and disinhibited externalizing) and a correlated two-factor model provided the best fit to the data. HiTOP dimensions had adequate reliability in the correlated factor model, but suboptimal reliability in the bifactor model. The disinhibited externalizing dimension was highly correlated across the two models and was familial, yet largely unrelated to RDoC (sub)constructs in both models. The internalizing dimension in the correlated factor model and the general factor in the bifactor model were highly correlated and had similar validity patterns, suggesting the general factor was largely redundant with the internalizing dimension in the correlated factor model. These findings support concerns about the interpretability of psychopathology dimensions in bifactor models. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34553953      PMCID: PMC8480429          DOI: 10.1037/abn0000687

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol        ISSN: 0021-843X


  57 in total

1.  The co-occurrence between internalizing and externalizing behaviors. A general population twin study.

Authors:  Paola Pesenti-Gritti; Chiara A M Spatola; Corrado Fagnani; Anna Ogliari; Valeria Patriarca; Maria Antonietta Stazi; Marco Battaglia
Journal:  Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2007-09-10       Impact factor: 4.785

2.  Anomalous results in G-factor models: Explanations and alternatives.

Authors:  Michael Eid; Christian Geiser; Tobias Koch; Moritz Heene
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2016-08-15

3.  Should we stop thinking about inhibition? Searching for individual and age differences in inhibition ability.

Authors:  Alodie Rey-Mermet; Miriam Gade; Klaus Oberauer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Transdiagnostic approaches to psychopathology measurement: Recommendations for measure selection, data analysis, and participant recruitment.

Authors:  Kasey Stanton; Christina G McDonnell; Elizabeth P Hayden; David Watson
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  2020-01

5.  Building theories on top of, and not independent of, statistical models: The case of the p-factor.

Authors:  Ashley L Watts; Sean P Lane; Wes Bonifay; Douglas Steinley; Francisco A C Meyer
Journal:  Psychol Inq       Date:  2021-01-07

Review 6.  Psychopathology research in the RDoC era: Unanswered questions and the importance of the psychophysiological unit of analysis.

Authors:  Stewart A Shankman; Stephanie M Gorka
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 2.997

7.  Criterion validity and relationships between alternative hierarchical dimensional models of general and specific psychopathology.

Authors:  Tyler M Moore; Antonia N Kaczkurkin; E Leighton Durham; Hee Jung Jeong; Malerie G McDowell; Randolph M Dupont; Brooks Applegate; Jennifer L Tackett; Carlos Cardenas-Iniguez; Omid Kardan; Gaby N Akcelik; Andrew J Stier; Monica D Rosenberg; Donald Hedeker; Marc G Berman; Benjamin B Lahey
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  2020-07-16

8.  Meta-analysis of the relations of anxiety sensitivity to the depressive and anxiety disorders.

Authors:  Kristin Naragon-Gainey
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 17.737

9.  NEURAL REACTIVITY TO REWARD AS A PREDICTOR OF COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY RESPONSE IN ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION.

Authors:  Katie L Burkhouse; Autumn Kujawa; Amy E Kennedy; Stewart A Shankman; Scott A Langenecker; K Luan Phan; Heide Klumpp
Journal:  Depress Anxiety       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 6.505

10.  Developmental stability of general and specific factors of psychopathology from early childhood to adolescence: dynamic mutualism or p-differentiation?

Authors:  Eoin McElroy; Jay Belsky; Natacha Carragher; Pasco Fearon; Praveetha Patalay
Journal:  J Child Psychol Psychiatry       Date:  2017-12-02       Impact factor: 8.982

View more
  1 in total

1.  Using what we know about threat reactivity models to understand mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Carter J Funkhouser; David M Klemballa; Stewart A Shankman
Journal:  Behav Res Ther       Date:  2022-03-25
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.