ORCID Profile
0000-0002-3980-8299
Current Organisations
North China Electric Power University
,
University of North Texas
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 04-2021
DOI: 10.1037/ABN0000533
Abstract: The present study compared the primary models used in research on the structure of psychopathology (i.e., correlated factor, higher-order, and bifactor models) in terms of structural validity (model fit and factor reliability), longitudinal measurement invariance, concurrent and prospective predictive validity in relation to important outcomes, and longitudinal consistency in in iduals' factor score profiles. Two simpler operationalizations of a general factor of psychopathology were also examined-a single-factor model and a count of diagnoses. Models were estimated based on structured clinical interview diagnoses in two longitudinal waves of nationally representative data from the United States (
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 04-03-2022
Abstract: The development of factor analysis is uniquely situated within psychology, and the development of many psychological theories and measures are likewise tethered to the common use of factor analysis. In this paper, we review modern methodological controversies and developments through concrete demonstrations of how to use factor analytic methods across the exploratory-confirmatory continuum. We illustrate best practices for working through common challenges in personality disorders research. To help researchers conduct risker tests of their theory-implied models, we review what factor analysis is and is not, as well as some dos and don’ts for engaging in the process of model evaluation and selection. Throughout, we also emphasize the need for closer alignment between factor models and our theories, as well as clearer statements about which criteria would support or refute the theories being tested. Consideration of these themes appears promising in terms of advances in theory, research, and treatment surrounding the nature and impact of personality disorders.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 20-10-2022
Abstract: Historically, researchers have proposed higher-order factors to explicate the structure of psychopathology, including Externalizing, Internalizing, Fear, Distress, Thought Disorder, and a general factor. Despite extensive research in this domain, the underlying structure of psychopathology remains unresolved. Herein, we examine several issues in adjudicating among structural models of psychopathology. Using simulations and analyses of the extant literature, we contrast the model-based reliability of alternative structural models of psychopathology and highlight shortcomings of conventional model fit indices for such adjudication. We propose alternative criteria for evaluating and contrasting competing structural models, including various model characteristics (e.g., the magnitude and consistency of factor loadings and their precision), the consistency and sensitivity of factors to their constituent indicators, and the variance explained in and patterns of associations with relevant variables. Using these criteria as adjuncts to conventional fit indices should become standard practice and will greatly facilitate adjudication among alternative structural models of psychopathology.
Publisher: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Date: 06-2022
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 02-04-2021
DOI: 10.1177/10731911211003976
Abstract: As part of a broader project to create a comprehensive self-report measure for the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology consortium, we developed preliminary scales to assess internalizing symptoms. The item pool was created in four steps: (a) clarifying the range of content to be assessed, (b) identifying target constructs to guide item writing, (c) developing formal definitions for each construct, and (d) writing multiple items for each construct. This yielded 430 items assessing 57 target constructs. Responses from a heterogeneous scale development s le ( N = 1,870) were subjected to item-level factor analyses based on polychoric correlations. This resulted in 39 scales representing a total of 213 items. The psychometric properties of these scales replicated well across the development s le and an independent validation s le ( N = 496 adults). Internal consistency analyses established that most scales assess relatively narrow forms of psychopathology. Structural analyses demonstrated the presence of a strong general factor. Additional analyses of the 35 nonsexual dysfunction scales revealed a replicable four-factor structure with dimensions we labeled Distress, Fear, Body Dysmorphia, and Mania. A final set of analyses established that the internalizing scales varied widely—and consistently—in the strength of their associations with neuroticism and extraversion.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 15-06-2023
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 09-06-2023
DOI: 10.1177/21677026221144256
Abstract: Historically, researchers have proposed higher-order factors to explicate the structure of psychopathology, including Externalizing, Internalizing, Fear, Distress, Thought Disorder, and a general factor. Despite extensive research in this domain, the underlying structure of psychopathology remains unresolved. Here, we examine several issues in adjudicating among structural models of psychopathology. Using simulations and analyses of the extant literature, we contrast the model-based reliability of alternative structural models of psychopathology and highlight shortcomings of conventional model-fit indices for such adjudication. We propose alternative criteria for evaluating and contrasting competing structural models, including various model characteristics (e.g., the magnitude and consistency of factor loadings and their precision), the consistency and sensitivity of factors to their constituent indicators, and the variance explained in and patterns of associations with relevant variables. Using these criteria as adjuncts to conventional fit indices should become standard practice and will greatly facilitate adjudication among alternative structural models of psychopathology.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 06-04-2020
Abstract: The present study compared the primary models used in research on the structure of psychopathology (i.e., correlated factor, higher-order, and bifactor models) in terms of structural validity (model fit and factor reliability), longitudinal measurement invariance, concurrent and prospective predictive validity in relation to important outcomes, and longitudinal consistency in in iduals’ factor score profiles. Two simpler operationalizations of a general factor of psychopathology were also examined—a single-factor model and a count of diagnoses. Models were estimated based on structured clinical interview diagnoses in two longitudinal waves of nationally representative data from the United States (n = 43,093 and n = 34,653). Models that included narrower factors (fear, distress, and externalizing) were needed to capture the observed multidimensionality of the data. In the correlated factor and higher-order models these narrower factors were reliable, largely invariant over time, had consistent associations with indicators of adaptive functioning, and had moderate stability within in iduals over time. By contrast, the fear and distress specific factors in the bifactor model did not show good reliability or validity throughout the analyses. Notably, the general factor of psychopathology (p-factor) performed similarly well across tests of reliability and validity regardless of whether the higher-order or bifactor model was used the simplest (single-factor) model was also comparable across most tests, with the exception of model fit. Given the limitations of categorical diagnoses, it will be important to repeat these analyses using dimensional measures. We conclude that when aiming to understand the structure and correlates of psychopathology it is important to: 1) look beyond model fit indices to choose between different models 2) examine the reliability of latent variables directly and 3) be cautious when isolating and interpreting the unique effects of specific psychopathology factors, regardless of which model is used.
Location: United States of America
Location: United States of America
Location: No location found
Location: United States of America
No related grants have been discovered for Holly Levin-Aspenson.