scholarly journals Factorial Invariance in Hierarchical Factor Models of Mental Disorders in African American and European American Youths

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quanfa He ◽  
James Janford Li
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Factorial Invariance ◽  
European American ◽  
General Factor ◽  
Prevalence Rates ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Best Fitting ◽  
Racial Ethnic ◽  
Three Factor

Background: There is converging and compelling evidence that mental disorders are more optimally conceptualized in a hierarchical framework that transcends traditional categorical boundaries. However, the majority of this evidence comes from studies that draw upon predominantly Caucasian populations. Whether the hierarchical conceptualization of mental disorders generalizes across racial-ethnic groups, including for African American (AA) youths, is unclear. This research is especially crucial in light of the observed racial-ethnic differences in the prevalence rates of several mental disorders. Methods: We tested multidimensional and bifactor models of 15 DSM-5 diagnoses and psychiatric traits in two groups, including AA (n=3,088) and European American (EA) (n=5,147) youths aged 8-21 from the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort (PNC). We also conducted multigroup confirmatory factor analyses to test for factorial invariance between the best fitting AA and EA multidimensional and bifactor models. Results: In the multidimensional model tests, a three-factor model, specifying internalizing, externalizing, and thought dimensions, emerged as the best fitting model for AAs and EAs. In the bifactor model tests, a three-factor model (i.e., internalizing, externalizing, and thought dimensions) that also specified a general factor emerged as the optimal for both AAs and EAs. The general factor accounted for a significant proportion of the covariation between the secondary factors and the individual disorders and traits. Furthermore, both models were factorially invariant, indicating that there was no significant difference in the factor structure of mental disorders between AAs and EAs in PNC. Conclusions: This study provides evidence that the hierarchical factor structure of mental disorders may be racial-ethnically robust. This finding has implications for etiological and epidemiological studies focused on racial-ethnic subgroup comparisons, particularly with respect to identifying similarities and differences in prevalence rates or sociodemographic risk factors for mental disorders.

scholarly journals Morningness in German and Spanish students: a comparative study

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 419-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Randler ◽  
Juan Francisco Díaz‐Morales
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Environmental Factors ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Factorial Invariance ◽  
Composite Scale ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
Structural Invariance ◽  
Multiple Groups ◽  
Three Factor

Humans show pronounced individual differences in circadian orientation. Transcultural comparisons are interesting since biological (or environmental) factors together with cultural ones may contribute to differences in morningness–eveningness. We compared Spanish and German undergraduates using the Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM) to assess circadian preferences. Confirmatory and multiple groups confirmatory factor analysis were used to assess factor structure and structural invariance across countries. The results showed that a three‐factor model of morningness best characterises the CSM structure of both samples. Partial factorial invariance (factor loadings) across countries was demonstrated for the factors ‘morningness’ and ‘morning alertness’. Scores of both factors were higher in German students. Potential cultural and biological explanations for the differences are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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).

Modeling the Structure of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure: Conceptual, Empirical, and Analytic Considerations

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 470-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonella Somma ◽  
Serena Borroni ◽  
Laura E. Drislane ◽  
Christopher J. Patrick ◽  
Andrea Fossati
Keyword(s):  
Factor Structure ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Least Square ◽  
Equation Modeling ◽  
General Factor ◽  
Specific Content ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Three Factor

This study sought to characterize the factor structure of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM) using data from a sample of 1,082 community-dwelling Italian adults. Exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) was used to compare the fit of a bifactor model for each TriPM scale, in which specific-content factors were specified along with a general factor, with the fit of a single, general-factor model. Robust weighted least square (WLSMV) ESEM supported a bifactor latent structure of the TriPM items for all individual scales. When we jointly factor analyzed the 58 TriPM items, a WLSMV ESEM three-factor structure showed adequate fit; the three ESEM factors were akin to TriPM Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition theoretical dimensions, respectively, and could be effectively replicated across gender subgroups. Our findings support the three-factor structure of TriPM items, at least in Italian community-dwelling adults, and provide further evidence for the construct validity of the TriPM.

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 Factor structure of Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices

Psico-USF ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monalisa Muniz ◽  
Cristiano Mauro Assis Gomes ◽  
Sonia Regina Pasian
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Factor Structure ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Specific Factor ◽  
General Factor ◽  
Factor Analyses ◽  
Confirmatory Factor Analyses ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
Three Factor

Abstract This study's objective was to verify the factor structure of Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM). The database used included the responses of 1,279 children, 50.2% of which were males with an average age of 8.48 years old and a standard deviation of 1.49 yrs. Confirmatory factor analyses were run to test seven models based on CPM theory and on a Brazilian study addressing the test's structure. The results did not confirm the CPM theoretical proposition concerning the scales but indicated that the test can be interpreted by one general factor and one specific factor or one general factor and three specific factors; both are bi-dimensional models. The three-factor model is, however, more interpretable, suggesting that the factors can be used as a means of screening children's cognitive developmental stage.

On the Meaning of the “P Factor” in Symmetrical Bifactor Models of Psychopathology: Recommendations for Future Research From the Bifactor-(S−1) Perspective

Assessment ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 107319112110602
Author(s):  
Manuel Heinrich ◽  
Christian Geiser ◽  
Pavle Zagorscak ◽  
G. Leonard Burns ◽  
Johannes Bohn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Specific Factor ◽  
General Factor ◽  
Modeling Framework ◽  
Factor Loadings ◽  
Negative Factor ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Unexpected Findings ◽  
P Factor

Symmetrical bifactor models are frequently applied to diverse symptoms of psychopathology to identify a general P factor. This factor is assumed to mark shared liability across all psychopathology dimensions and mental disorders. Despite their popularity, however, symmetrical bifactor models of P often yield anomalous results, including but not limited to nonsignificant or negative specific factor variances and nonsignificant or negative factor loadings. To date, these anomalies have often been treated as nuisances to be explained away. In this article, we demonstrate why these anomalies alter the substantive meaning of P such that it (a) does not reflect general liability to psychopathology and (b) differs in meaning across studies. We then describe an alternative modeling framework, the bifactor-( S−1) approach. This method avoids anomalous results, provides a framework for explaining unexpected findings in published symmetrical bifactor studies, and yields a well-defined general factor that can be compared across studies when researchers hypothesize what construct they consider “transdiagnostically meaningful” and measure it directly. We present an empirical example to illustrate these points and provide concrete recommendations to help researchers decide for or against specific variants of bifactor structure.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analytic Factor Analysis of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Yui Yeung ◽  
Livia Yuliawati ◽  
Sing-Hang Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Factor Structure ◽  
General Factor ◽  
Depression And Anxiety ◽  
Factor Analyses ◽  
Latent Factor ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Best Fitting ◽  
Unidimensional Construct ◽  
Consistent Performance

Despite the increasingly widespread usage of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS), its latent factor structure has yet to be reviewed. We thus carried out a systematic review of studies examining the latent factor structure of the DASS, further synthesizing findings by performing meta-analytic factor analyses on the available data from said studies. The literature search was conducted across three databases, yielding 59 articles encompassing 89 factor analyses. Reviewed results varied across factor analytic approaches (EFA vs. CFA) and DASS versions (DASS42 vs. DASS21), though the original 3-factor structure of the DASS was generally supported. However, bifactor models (consisting of a general factor and group factors) were most consistently best-fitting whenever tested, supporting an underlying unidimensional construct in DASS. This notion was corroborated by our meta-analytic factor analyses, wherein DASS21 bifactor models demonstrated the same consistent performance, though DASS42 analyses were inconclusive between a 3-factor and 1-factor solution. Our findings fit in with broader historical and contemporary developments in the field, and reinforce the potential utility of bifactor models in illustrating the overlap between depression and anxiety. Some recommendations moving forward are discussed.

scholarly journals The factor structure of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in schoolchildren

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trine Wigh Arildskov ◽  
Anne Virring ◽  
Rikke Lambek ◽  
Anders Helles Carlsen ◽  
Edmund J.S. Sonuga-Barke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
General Population ◽  
Factor Structure ◽  
Attention Deficit ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
General Factor ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
Three Factor

ABSTRACTThis study investigated the factor structure of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by comparing the fit of a single-factor model, a correlated model with two or three factors, and a bifactor model with one general and two or three specific factors. Different three-factor solutions that varied with regard to the specification of the item “talks excessively” as impulsivity or hyperactivity were also tested. Parent ratings on the ADHD-Rating Scale (ADHD-RS-IV) were collected in a sample of 2044 schoolchildren (1st to 3rd grade) from the general population and in a clinical sample of 165 children and adolescents with ADHD referred to a public regional child and adolescent psychiatric hospital. Confirmatory factor analyses found a satisfactory fit for most models in both samples. However, a correlated three-factor model where “talks excessively” was included as an indicator of impulsivity and especially the bifactor version of this model with one general and three specific factors fit the data slightly better in the general population. In the clinical sample, a number of models performed equally well (the same version of the correlated three-factor model and all the bifactor models). Overall, the factor structure of ADHD seems to be better characterized by a bifactor model with a strong general factor and two or three weaker specific factors. Due to the strong general factor, we suggest emphasizing the ADHD-RS-IV total score rather than the subscale scores in clinical practice.

scholarly journals On the Meaning of the General Factor of Psychopathology (“P-Factor”) in Symmetrical Bifactor Models

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Heinrich ◽  
Christian Geiser ◽  
Pavle Zagorscak ◽  
G. Leonard Burns ◽  
Johannes Bohn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Specific Factor ◽  
General Factor ◽  
Modeling Framework ◽  
Factor Loadings ◽  
Negative Factor ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Unexpected Findings ◽  
P Factor

Symmetrical bifactor models are frequently applied to diverse symptoms of psychopathology to identify a general P factor. This factor is assumed to mark shared liability across psychopathology dimensions and mental disorders. Despite their popularity, however, symmetrical bifactor models often yield anomalous results, including but not limited to non-significant or negative specific factor variances and non-significant or negative factor loadings. To date, these anomalies have often been treated as nuisances to be explained away. In this paper, we demonstrate why these anomalies alter the substantive meaning of P such that it (1) does not reflect general liability to psychopathology and (2) differs in meaning across studies. We then describe an alternative modeling framework, the bifactor-(S − 1) approach. This approach avoids anomalous results, provides a framework for explaining unexpected findings in published symmetrical bifactor studies, and yields a general factor with well-defined meaning across studies. We present an empirical example to illustrate these points and provide concrete recommendations to help researchers decide for or against a specific variant of bifactor structures. In summary, bifactor-(S − 1) models provide an approach to answer questions posed in symmetrical bifactor models in a more comparable and replicable manner.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document