The Bifactor S-1 Model: a Psychometrically Sounder Alternative to Test the Structure of ADHD and ODD?

Jeffrey D Burke, Oliver G Johnston
{"title":"The Bifactor S-1 Model: a Psychometrically Sounder Alternative to Test the Structure of ADHD and ODD?","authors":"Jeffrey D Burke, Oliver G Johnston","doi":"10.1007/s10802-020-00645-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Questions persist about whether attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and conduct disorder are in fact distinct from one another. When such questions arise, ODD is often suggested to be subsumed under one or the other condition. Modeling approaches that can evaluate whether specific subfactors can be distinguished from general psychopathology are of great interest, and the general bifactor model has been increasingly applied in studies evaluating the structure of psychopathology. However, evidence for bias in the model, the frequency of anomalous indicators, and theoretical concerns about the applicability of the general bifactor model to these questions raise doubts about whether it is reliable or appropriate to do so. Burns and colleagues propose the bifactor S-1 model as a psychometrically sounder alternative. Their systematic examination provides a compelling argument that it is psychometrically sounder, but it is not clear that it is a true alternative. It may not be answering the same questions, cannot test hypotheses regarding the same sets of specific subfactors, and relies on a priori decisions on the part of the researcher that may change the interpretation of the results. The bifactor S-1 model approach appears to be a valuable, psychometrically sound approach to test the structure of psychopathology, particularly in regard to ADHD and ODD.</p>","PeriodicalId":14810,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology","volume":"48 7","pages":"911-915"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10802-020-00645-4","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00645-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Questions persist about whether attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and conduct disorder are in fact distinct from one another. When such questions arise, ODD is often suggested to be subsumed under one or the other condition. Modeling approaches that can evaluate whether specific subfactors can be distinguished from general psychopathology are of great interest, and the general bifactor model has been increasingly applied in studies evaluating the structure of psychopathology. However, evidence for bias in the model, the frequency of anomalous indicators, and theoretical concerns about the applicability of the general bifactor model to these questions raise doubts about whether it is reliable or appropriate to do so. Burns and colleagues propose the bifactor S-1 model as a psychometrically sounder alternative. Their systematic examination provides a compelling argument that it is psychometrically sounder, but it is not clear that it is a true alternative. It may not be answering the same questions, cannot test hypotheses regarding the same sets of specific subfactors, and relies on a priori decisions on the part of the researcher that may change the interpretation of the results. The bifactor S-1 model approach appears to be a valuable, psychometrically sound approach to test the structure of psychopathology, particularly in regard to ADHD and ODD.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
双因素 S-1 模型:测试多动症(ADHD)和注意力缺陷障碍(ODD)结构的心理测量学合理替代方案?
关于注意力缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)、对立违抗障碍(ODD)和行为障碍实际上是否相互区别的问题一直存在。当出现此类问题时,人们通常会建议将对立违抗障碍归入其中一种情况。能够评估特定子因素能否从一般精神病理学中区分出来的建模方法备受关注,一般双因素模型也越来越多地被应用于评估精神病理学结构的研究中。然而,有证据表明该模型存在偏差、异常指标频频出现,以及理论界对一般双因素模型是否适用于这些问题的担忧,都让人怀疑该模型是否可靠或是否适合这样做。伯恩斯及其同事提出了双因素 S-1 模型,作为心理测量学上更可靠的替代方案。他们的系统研究提供了一个令人信服的论据,证明该模型在心理测量学上更为可靠,但并不清楚它是否是一个真正的替代方案。它可能无法回答相同的问题,无法检验与特定子因素相同的假设,而且依赖于研究人员的先验决定,这可能会改变对结果的解释。双因素 S-1 模型方法似乎是一种有价值的、心理测量学上合理的方法,可用于测试精神病理学的结构,尤其是多动症和定向障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology brings together the latest innovative research that advances knowledge of psychopathology from infancy through adolescence. The journal publishes studies that have a strong theoretical framework and use a diversity of methods, with an emphasis on empirical studies of the major forms of psychopathology found in childhood disorders (e.g., disruptive behavior disorders, depression, anxiety, and autism spectrum disorder). Studies focus on the epidemiology, etiology, assessment, treatment, prognosis, and developmental course of these forms of psychopathology. Studies highlighting risk and protective factors; the ecology and correlates of children''s emotional, social, and behavior problems; and advances in prevention and treatment are featured. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology is the official journal of the International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology (ISRCAP), a multidisciplinary scientific society.
期刊最新文献
Reactivity to Peer Rejection Moderates the Effect of Victimization on Adolescent Girls’ Depressive Symptoms: A Prospective Study Temperamental Shyness, Peer Competence, and Loneliness in Middle Childhood: The Role of Positive Emotion Here Comes Revenge: Peer Victimization Relates to Neural and Behavioral Responses to Social Exclusion Impulsive Decision-Making, Affective Experiences, and Parental History of Self-Injurious Thoughts and Behaviors within Parent-Adolescent Dyads Bibliometric Trends and Thematic Areas in Research on Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome in Children: A Comprehensive Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1