scholarly journals Strong Homotypic Continuity in Common Psychopathology-, Internalizing-, and Externalizing-Specific Factors Over Time in Adolescents

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah R. Snyder ◽  
Jami F. Young ◽  
Benjamin L. Hankin
Keyword(s):  
Community Sample ◽  
Strong Stability ◽  
General Psychopathology ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
The Stability ◽  
P Factor ◽  
Heterotypic Continuity ◽  
Internalizing And Externalizing ◽  
Over Time

Dimensional models of psychopathology that posit a general psychopathology factor (i.e., p factor), in addition to specific internalizing and externalizing factors, have recently gained prominence. However, the stability of these factors and the specificity with which they are related to one another over time (e.g., homotypic or heterotypic continuity) have not been investigated. The current study addressed these questions. We estimated bifactor models, with p, internalizing-specific, and externalizing-specific factors, with youth and caretaker reports of symptoms at two time points (18 months apart), in a large community sample of adolescents. Results showed strong stability over time with highly specific links (i.e., p factor at Time 1 to Time 2; internalizing-specific at Time 1 to Time 2 and externalizing-specific at Time 1 to Time 2), suggesting strong homotypic continuity between higher order latent psychopathology factors.

scholarly journals The p Factor and the n Factor: Associations Between the General Factors of Psychopathology and Neuroticism in Children

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassandra M Brandes ◽  
Kathrin Herzhoff ◽  
Avante J Smack ◽  
Jennifer L Tackett
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Negative Emotionality ◽  
General Factor ◽  
General Psychopathology ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
Latent Dimension ◽  
P Factor ◽  
Internalizing And Externalizing

Research across age groups has consistently indicated that psychopathology has a general factor structure, such that there is a broad latent dimension (or p factor) capturing variance common to all mental disorders, as well as specific internalizing and externalizing factors. This research has found that the p factor overlaps substantially with trait negative emotionality (or neuroticism). However, less is known about the psychological substance of the specific factors of the general psychopathology model, or how lower-order facets of neuroticism may relate to each psychopathology factor. We investigated the structure of neuroticism and psychopathology, as well as associations between these domains in a sample of 695 pre-adolescent children using multi-method assessments. We found that both psychopathology and neuroticism may be well-characterized by bifactor models, and that there was substantial overlap between psychopathology (p) and neuroticism (n) general factors, as well as between specific factors (Internalizing with Fear, Externalizing with Irritability).

scholarly journals The p Factor and the n Factor: Associations Between the General Factors of Psychopathology and Neuroticism in Children

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 1266-1284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassandra M. Brandes ◽  
Kathrin Herzhoff ◽  
Avanté J. Smack ◽  
Jennifer L. Tackett
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Negative Emotionality ◽  
General Factor ◽  
General Psychopathology ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
Latent Dimension ◽  
P Factor ◽  
Internalizing And Externalizing

Research across age groups has consistently indicated that psychopathology has a general factor structure such that a broad latent dimension (or p factor) captures variance common to all mental disorders as well as specific internalizing and externalizing factors. This research has found that the p factor overlaps substantially with trait negative emotionality (or neuroticism). However, less is known about the psychological substance of the specific factors of the general psychopathology model or how lower-order facets of neuroticism may relate to each psychopathology factor. We investigated the structure of neuroticism and psychopathology as well as associations between these domains using multimethod assessments in a sample of 695 preadolescent children. We found that both psychopathology and neuroticism may be well characterized by bifactor models and that there was substantial overlap between psychopathology (p) and neuroticism (n) general factors as well as between specific factors (Internalizing with Fear, Externalizing with Irritability).

scholarly journals Riskier Tests of the Validity of Bifactor Models of Psychopathology

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley L. Watts ◽  
Holly Poore ◽  
Irwin Waldman
Keyword(s):  
Community Sample ◽  
General Factor ◽  
Symptom Dimensions ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
Psychopathology Symptom ◽  
Using Data ◽  
P Factor ◽  
Correlated Factors ◽  
Additional Variance

We advanced several “riskier tests” of the validity of bifactor models of psychopathology, which included that the general and specific factors should be reliable and well-represented by their indicators, and that including a general factor should improve the correlated factor model’s external validity. We compared bifactor and correlated factors models using data from a community sample of youth (N=2498) whose parents provided ratings on psychopathology and external criteria (i.e., temperament, aggression, antisociality). Bifactor models tended to yield either general or specific factors that were unstable and difficult to interpret. The general factor appeared to reflect a differentially-weighted amalgam of psychopathology rather than a liability for psychopathology broadly construed. With rare exceptions, bifactor models did not explain additional variance in psychopathology symptom dimensions or external criteria compared with correlated factors models. Together, our findings call into question the validity of bifactor models of psychopathology, and the p-factor more broadly.

scholarly journals Pubertal Timing as a Transdiagnostic Risk for Psychopathology in Youth

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 411-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elissa J. Hamlat ◽  
Hannah R. Snyder ◽  
Jami F. Young ◽  
Benjamin L. Hankin
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Pubertal Timing ◽  
Organizational Models ◽  
General Psychopathology ◽  
Early Pubertal Timing ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
P Factor ◽  
Internalizing And Externalizing ◽  
Different Levels

Evidence suggests that early pubertal timing may operate as a transdiagnostic risk factor (i.e., shared across syndromes of psychopathology) for both genders. The current study examined associations between pubertal timing and dimensional psychopathology, structured across different levels of three organizational models: (a) DSM-based syndrome model, (b) traditional model of internalizing and externalizing factors, and (c) bifactor (p factor) model, which includes a general psychopathology factor as well as internalizing- and externalizing-specific factors. For study analyses, 567 youth-parent pairs completed psychopathology measures when youths (55.5% female) were 13.58 years old ( SD = 2.37, range = 9–17 years). Findings across all models revealed that early pubertal timing served as a transdiagnostic risk factor and also displayed some syndrome-specific associations. Gender did not moderate any relationships between pubertal timing and psychopathology. Study findings reinforce the importance of examining risk across different levels of psychopathology conceptualization and analysis.

Evaluating Bifactor Models of Psychopathology Using Model-Based Reliability Indices

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Constantinou ◽  
Peter Fonagy
Keyword(s):  
Bifactor Model ◽  
Common Variance ◽  
Reliability Indices ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
P Factor ◽  
Explained Common Variance ◽  
Internalizing And Externalizing ◽  
Variance Explained

There is has been a rapid increase in quantitative researchers applying the bifactor model to psychopathology data. The bifactor model, which typically includes a general p factor and internalizing and externalizing residual factors, consistently demonstrates superior model fit to competing models, including the correlated factors model, which typically includes internalizing and externalizing factors. However, the bifactor model’s superior fit might stem from its tendency to overfit noise and flexibly fit most datasets. An alternative approach to evaluating bifactor models that does not rely on fit statistics is model-based reliability assessment. Reliability indices, including omega/omega hierarchical, explained common variance, and percent uncontaminated correlations can be used to determine the viability of the general and specific psychopathology factors and the extent that the underlying data structure and its measurement is multidimensional. In this methodological review, we identified 49 studies published between 2009 and 2019 that applied the bifactor model to at least two separate symptom domains and calculated reliability indices from the standardized factor loading matrices. We also predicted variation in the p factor’s strength, indexed by the explained common variance, from study characteristics. We found that psychopathology measures tend to be multidimensional, with 57% of the variance explained by the p factor and the remaining variance explained by specific factors. By contrast, most of the variance in observed total scores (74%) was explained by the p factor, while relatively little of the variance in in observed subscale scores (37%) was explained by specific factors beyond the p factor. Finally, 62% of the variability in the p factor’s strength could be predicted by study characteristics, most notably the informant (in a simultaneous regression model), but also age, percent uncontaminated correlations, and the number of items (in separate regression models). We conclude that the latent structure of psychopathology is multidimensional, but its measurement is governed by a single dimension, the strength of which is predicted by study characteristics, particularly the informant.

Riskier Tests of the Validity of the Bifactor Model of Psychopathology

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 1285-1303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley L. Watts ◽  
Holly E. Poore ◽  
Irwin D. Waldman
Keyword(s):  
Community Sample ◽  
General Factor ◽  
Symptom Dimensions ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
Psychopathology Symptom ◽  
Using Data ◽  
P Factor ◽  
Correlated Factors ◽  
Additional Variance

We advanced several “riskier tests” of the validity of bifactor models of psychopathology, which included that the general and specific psychopathology factors should be reliable and well represented by their respective indicators and that including a general factor should improve on the correlated factor model’s external validity. We compared bifactor and correlated factors models of psychopathology using data from a community sample of youth ( N = 2,498) whose parents provided ratings on psychopathology and theoretically relevant external criteria (i.e., personality, aggression, antisociality). Bifactor models tended to yield either general or specific factors that were unstable and difficult to interpret. The general factor appeared to reflect a differentially weighted amalgam of psychopathology rather than a liability for psychopathology broadly construed. With rare exceptions, bifactor models did not explain additional variance in first-order psychopathology symptom dimensions or external criteria compared with correlated factors models. Together, our findings call into question the validity of bifactor models of psychopathology and the p factor more broadly.

scholarly journals The P Factor in Children: Relationships with Executive Functions and Effortful Control

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Shields ◽  
Kathleen Wade Reardon ◽  
Cassandra M Brandes ◽  
Jennifer L Tackett
Keyword(s):  
Executive Functions ◽  
Effortful Control ◽  
Community Sample ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Psychological Disorders ◽  
General Psychopathology ◽  
Large N ◽  
P Factor ◽  
Regulatory Functions ◽  
Correlated Factors

Lower levels of self-regulation have been implicated in multiple psychological disorders. Despite conceptual overlap (broadly reflecting self-regulatory functions), executive functions (EF) and effortful control (EC) are rarely jointly studied in relation to broadband psychopathology. The present study investigated associations of correlated factors (internalizing-externalizing) and bifactor psychopathology models with EF and EC in a large (N=895) childhood community sample (Mage = 11.54, SDage = 2.25). Associations between both self-regulation constructs (EF and EC) with psychopathology were largely accounted for via a general psychopathology factor. However, EC evidenced stronger associations, questioning the utility of task-based EF measures to inform self-regulatory psychopathology.

scholarly journals Toward a Functional View of the p Factor in Psychopathology

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 880-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles S. Carver ◽  
Sheri L. Johnson ◽  
Kiara R. Timpano
Keyword(s):  
Process Variable ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Thought Disorder ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Functional Interpretation ◽  
General Psychopathology ◽  
Underlying Process ◽  
Deliberative System ◽  
P Factor ◽  
Internalizing And Externalizing

Evidence indicates the existence of a superordinate factor of general psychopathology, which has been termed p. Among the issues raised by this discovery is whether this factor has substantive meaning or not. This article suggests a functional interpretation of the p factor, based in part on a family of dual process models, in which an associative system and a deliberative system compete for influence over action. The associative system is frequently said to be impulsively responsive to emotions. We hypothesize that this impulsive responsivity to emotion underlies the p factor. One benefit of this view is to use the same underlying process variable to account for both internalizing and externalizing vulnerabilities as well as aspects of thought disorder. Evidence is reviewed linking impulsive reactivity to emotion to the p factor and (separately) to internalizing, externalizing, and thought-disorder symptoms. Alternative interpretations are considered.

scholarly journals Going “Up” to Move Forward: S-1 Bifactor Models and the Study of Neurocognitive Abilities in Psychopathology

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (14) ◽  
pp. 7413
Author(s):  
Darren Haywood ◽  
Frank D. Baughman ◽  
Barbara A. Mullan ◽  
Karen R. Heslop
Keyword(s):  
Structural Models ◽  
General Factor ◽  
Neurocognitive Performance ◽  
Diagnostic Stability ◽  
Psychopathological Symptoms ◽  
Simulation Techniques ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
P Factor

Recently, structural models of psychopathology, that address the diagnostic stability and comorbidity issues of the traditional nosological approach, have dominated much of the psychopathology literature. Structural approaches have given rise to the p-factor, which is claimed to reflect an individual’s propensity toward all common psychopathological symptoms. Neurocognitive abilities are argued to be important to the development and maintenance of a wide range of disorders, and have been suggested as an important driver of the p-factor. However, recent evidence argues against p being an interpretable substantive construct, limiting conclusions that can be drawn from associations between p, the specific factors of a psychopathology model, and neurocognitive abilities. Here, we argue for the use of the S-1 bifactor approach, where the general factor is defined by neurocognitive abilities, to explore the association between neurocognitive performance and a wide range of psychopathological symptoms. We use simulation techniques to give examples of how S-1 bifactor models can be used to examine this relationship, and how the results can be interpreted.

scholarly journals Appropriate use of bifactor analysis in psychopathology research: appreciating benefits and limitations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Bornovalova ◽  
Alexandria M. Choate ◽  
Haya Fatimah ◽  
Karl J. Petersen ◽  
Brenton M. Wiernik
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Approach ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Model Fit ◽  
General Psychopathology ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The Past ◽  
Fit Statistics ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
P Factor

Co-occurrence of psychiatric disorders is well-documented. Recent quantitative efforts have moved toward an understanding of this phenomenon, with the ‘general psychopathology’ or p-factor model emerging as the most prominent characterization. Over the past decade, bifactor model analysis has become increasingly popular as a statistical approach to describe common/shared and unique elements in psychopathology. However, recent work has highlighted potential problems with common approaches to evaluating and interpreting bifactor models. Here, we argue that, when properly applied and interpreted, bifactor models can be useful for answering some important questions in psychology and psychiatry research. We review problems with evaluating bifactor models based on global model fit statistics. We then describe more valid approaches to evaluating bifactor models and highlight three types of research questions for which bifactor models are well-suited to answer. We also discuss the utility and limits of bifactor applications in genetic and neurobiological research. We close by comparing advantages and disadvantages of bifactor models to other analytic approaches and noting that no statistical model is a panacea to rectify limitations of the research design used to gather data.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document