Recommendations for adjudicating among alternative structural models of psychopathology


Journal article


I. D. Waldman, C. D. King, H. E. Poore, J. M. Luningham, R. M. Zinbarg, R. F. Krueger, K. E. Markon, M. Bornovalova, M. Chmielewski, C. Conway, M. Dretsch, N. R. Eaton, M. K. Forbes, K. Forbush, K. Naragon-Gainey, A. L. Greene, J. D. Haltigan, M. Ivanova, K. Joyner, ..., D. Zald
Clinical Psychological Science, vol. 11(4), 2023, pp. 616–640


DOI
Cite

Cite

APA   Click to copy
Waldman, I. D., King, C. D., Poore, H. E., Luningham, J. M., Zinbarg, R. M., Krueger, R. F., … Zald, D. (2023). Recommendations for adjudicating among alternative structural models of psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 11(4), 616–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026221144256


Chicago/Turabian   Click to copy
Waldman, I. D., C. D. King, H. E. Poore, J. M. Luningham, R. M. Zinbarg, R. F. Krueger, K. E. Markon, et al. “Recommendations for Adjudicating among Alternative Structural Models of Psychopathology.” Clinical Psychological Science 11, no. 4 (2023): 616–640.


MLA   Click to copy
Waldman, I. D., et al. “Recommendations for Adjudicating among Alternative Structural Models of Psychopathology.” Clinical Psychological Science, vol. 11, no. 4, 2023, pp. 616–40, doi:10.1177/21677026221144256.


BibTeX   Click to copy

@article{waldman2023a,
  title = {Recommendations for adjudicating among alternative structural models of psychopathology},
  year = {2023},
  issue = {4},
  journal = {Clinical Psychological Science},
  pages = { 616–640},
  volume = {11},
  doi = {10.1177/21677026221144256},
  author = {Waldman, I. D. and King, C. D. and Poore, H. E. and Luningham, J. M. and Zinbarg, R. M. and Krueger, R. F. and Markon, K. E. and Bornovalova, M. and Chmielewski, M. and Conway, C. and Dretsch, M. and Eaton, N. R. and Forbes, M. K. and Forbush, K. and Naragon-Gainey, K. and Greene, A. L. and Haltigan, J. D. and Ivanova, M. and Joyner, K. and ... and Zald, D.}
}

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.

Share



Follow this website


You need to create an Owlstown account to follow this website.


Sign up

Already an Owlstown member?

Log in