are acknowledged for their thoughtful feedback during the early stages of this project. Special thanks is also offered to Christian Luhmann for his valuable insight and constructive critiques of this work. Limited previews of this study's hypotheses and results were presented on two occasions. First, preliminary findings were discussed with HiTOP coauthors at the 2017 HiTOP meeting in Denver, Colorado. Second, some preliminary results were discussed in an APS conference presentation led by Roman Kotov. None of the results reported herein have been posted on any websites, listserves, or manuscript publications.

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 individuals' 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 individuals 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.

No abstract

Background Although the relationship between obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and obsessive compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) has long been debated, clinical samples of OCD (without OCPD) and OCPD (without OCD) have never been systematically compared. We studied whether individuals with OCD, OCPD, or both conditions differ on symptomatology, functioning, and a measure of self-control: the capacity to delay reward. Methods 25 OCD, 25 OCPD, 25 comorbid OCD+OCPD, and 25 healthy controls (HC) completed clinical assessments and a validated intertemporal choice task that measures capacity to forego small immediate rewards for larger delayed rewards. Results OCD and OCPD subjects both showed impairment in psychosocial functioning and quality of life, as well as compulsive behavior, but only subjects with OCD reported obsessions. Individuals with OCPD, with or without comorbid OCD, discounted the value of delayed monetary rewards significantly less than OCD and HC. This excessive capacity to delay reward discriminates OCPD from OCD, and is associated with perfectionism and rigidity. Conclusions OCD and OCPD are both impairing disorders marked by compulsive behaviors, but they can be differentiated by the presence of obsessions in OCD and by excessive capacity to delay reward in OCPD. That individuals with OCPD show less temporal discounting (suggestive of excessive self-control) whereas prior studies have shown that individuals with substance use disorders show greater discounting (suggestive of impulsivity) supports the premise that this component of self-control lies on a continuum in which both extremes (impulsivity and overcontrol) contribute to psychopathology.

No abstract

This study examined the structure of PTSD comorbidity and its relationship to personality in a sample of 214 veterans using data from diagnostic interviews and the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire-Brief Form (MPQ-BF; Patrick, Curtin, & Tellegen, 2002). Confirmatory factor analyses supported a three factor model composed of Externalizing, Fear and Distress factors. Analyses that examined the location of borderline personality disorder revealed significant cross-loadings for this disorder on both Externalizing and Distress. Structural equation models showed trait negative emotionality to be significantly related to all three comorbidity factors whereas positive emotionality and constraint evidenced specific associations with Distress and Externalizing, respectively. These results shed new light on the location of borderline personality disorder within the internalizing/externalizing model and clarify the relative influence of broad dimensions of personality on patterns of comorbidity.

No abstract

No abstract