Alexander L. Williams, Christopher C. Conway, T. Olino, Wiliam Revelle, Richard M. Zinbarg
{"title":"测试精神病理学层次模型的标准有效性:潜变量法与因子得分法的比较","authors":"Alexander L. Williams, Christopher C. Conway, T. Olino, Wiliam Revelle, Richard M. Zinbarg","doi":"10.1177/21677026231225414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology is a quantitative diagnostic system that is gaining traction as a framework for studying the correlates of mental-health problems. However, it remains unknown how best to operationalize hierarchically related psychopathology dimensions during criterion validity tests. In a series of simulations, we evaluated the performance of latent-variable (i.e., structural equation modeling [SEM]) and factor-score representations of hierarchical psychopathology constructs in criterion validity analyses. In models based on continuously distributed psychopathology indicators (e.g., symptom composites), SEM and factor-score methods both tended to yield unbiased estimates of criterion validity coefficients. In contrast, for models based on dichotomous indicators (e.g., categorical diagnoses), SEM led to more accurate estimates than factor scores in most cases. We offer recommendations for psychopathology researchers based on these results and provide an R function ( https://osf.io/u3j5d/ ) that investigators can use to apply the approaches studied here in real-world data sets.","PeriodicalId":505170,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychological Science","volume":"93 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing Criterion Validity in Hierarchical Models of Psychopathology: Comparison of Latent-Variable and Factor-Score Approaches\",\"authors\":\"Alexander L. Williams, Christopher C. Conway, T. Olino, Wiliam Revelle, Richard M. Zinbarg\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/21677026231225414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology is a quantitative diagnostic system that is gaining traction as a framework for studying the correlates of mental-health problems. However, it remains unknown how best to operationalize hierarchically related psychopathology dimensions during criterion validity tests. In a series of simulations, we evaluated the performance of latent-variable (i.e., structural equation modeling [SEM]) and factor-score representations of hierarchical psychopathology constructs in criterion validity analyses. In models based on continuously distributed psychopathology indicators (e.g., symptom composites), SEM and factor-score methods both tended to yield unbiased estimates of criterion validity coefficients. In contrast, for models based on dichotomous indicators (e.g., categorical diagnoses), SEM led to more accurate estimates than factor scores in most cases. We offer recommendations for psychopathology researchers based on these results and provide an R function ( https://osf.io/u3j5d/ ) that investigators can use to apply the approaches studied here in real-world data sets.\",\"PeriodicalId\":505170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychological Science\",\"volume\":\"93 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychological Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026231225414\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026231225414","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
精神病理学层次分类法是一种定量诊断系统,作为研究心理健康问题相关因素的框架,它正日益受到重视。然而,在标准效度测试中,如何最好地操作分层相关的精神病理学维度仍是一个未知数。在一系列模拟实验中,我们评估了潜变量(即结构方程建模 [SEM])和因子得分表征的分层心理病理学建构在标准有效性分析中的表现。在基于连续分布的精神病理学指标(如症状组合)的模型中,SEM 和因子-分数方法都倾向于产生无偏的标准效度系数估计值。相反,对于基于二分法指标(如分类诊断)的模型,在大多数情况下,SEM 比因子得分法得出的估计结果更准确。我们根据这些结果为精神病理学研究人员提供了建议,并提供了一个 R 函数 ( https://osf.io/u3j5d/ ),研究人员可以用它将本文研究的方法应用到实际数据集中。
Testing Criterion Validity in Hierarchical Models of Psychopathology: Comparison of Latent-Variable and Factor-Score Approaches
The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology is a quantitative diagnostic system that is gaining traction as a framework for studying the correlates of mental-health problems. However, it remains unknown how best to operationalize hierarchically related psychopathology dimensions during criterion validity tests. In a series of simulations, we evaluated the performance of latent-variable (i.e., structural equation modeling [SEM]) and factor-score representations of hierarchical psychopathology constructs in criterion validity analyses. In models based on continuously distributed psychopathology indicators (e.g., symptom composites), SEM and factor-score methods both tended to yield unbiased estimates of criterion validity coefficients. In contrast, for models based on dichotomous indicators (e.g., categorical diagnoses), SEM led to more accurate estimates than factor scores in most cases. We offer recommendations for psychopathology researchers based on these results and provide an R function ( https://osf.io/u3j5d/ ) that investigators can use to apply the approaches studied here in real-world data sets.