Abstract

Factor analytic models of common mental disorders have been hypothesized to be affected by various methodological features, which could undermine the assumption that Internalizing and Externalizing reflect part of the natural structure of psychopathology. In this study, we addressed this issue by testing whether and how methodological features affect the empirical structure of psychopathology using meta-analytic measurement invariance models of Internalizing and Externalizing across multiple sample characteristics. Published studies estimating factor analytic models from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) diagnoses were screened. A total of 47 samples (N = 118,966) were included in the meta-analysis. Data were pooled into meta-analytic correlation matrices using random effects models that accounted for sampling variability. Multigroup confirmatory factor analytic models of Internalizing and Externalizing were fit to the pooled matrix of DSM diagnoses to test invariance of the structure, factor loadings, and factor covariance. Results supported partial or full invariance across (a) samples selected versus not selected for psychopathology, (b) diagnoses defined by binary DSM thresholds versus dimensional symptoms counts, and (c) diagnoses based on lifetime versus current symptoms. Tentative analyses indicated noninvariance across samples that made diagnoses using hierarchical exclusion rules versus those that did not. Our study suggests that the Internalizing and Externalizing structure is largely robust to common methodological characteristics thought to impact factor analytic models. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).