Sociometrics and a revised Pupil Evaluation Inventory (PEI) were administered to 362 boys in Grades 3-6 to define peer-rated narrow-band dimensions of undercontrolled behavior associated with peer rejection. Three dimensions resulted from factor analysis: aggression, hyperactivity, and inattention-immaturity. All 3 dimensions were associated with peer rejection; but only inattention-immaturity was negatively associated with positive socionietric status. Two distinct clusters of boys with undercontrolled behavior problems were found: a hyperactive and inattentive-immature group and a hyperactive and aggressive group. Results indicate that a more precise and powerful model of peer rejection in boys is obtained through the use of narrow-band dimensions of undercontrolled behavior than through broad-band aggression-disruption scales from existing peer-rating measures.
This article describes a method for the intraindividual clinical validation of a cognitive case formulation (CCF) involving hypotheses about the patient's idiosyncratic cognitive schema (ICS). The two-stage approach begins by testing the convergent and discriminant validity of the hypothesized ICS against the individual's daily ratings of cognition items using confirmatory dynamic factor analysis. The second stage evaluates the extent to which the ICS factor scores predict daily variability in symptoms and distress and further addresses convergent and discriminant validity by evaluating intraindividual cognitive content specificity and the incremental validity of the idiographic cognition factors compared with nomothetic measures of thoughts/beliefs. This approach to validating idiographic assessment is illustrated with the CCF of a woman with comorbid mood and anxiety disorders.
Despite considerable interest and growth in methods to develop or generate cognitive behavioral case formulations (CBCFs), relatively little conceptual and empirical work has focused on the validation or testing of these formulations. A case formulation can be regarded as an idiographic theory of the person and his or her life situation. This complex set of clinical judgments consists of a measurement model including the behavior problems or distress constructs and how they are measured; and a causal model involving variables such as thoughts or beliefs hypothesized to trigger and maintain this person’s distress or dysfunction. This article describes four types of validity issues in CBCF and how these validity issues can be evaluated using person-specific, intraindividual data collected daily or multiple times a day. Specific topics include the evaluation of content and construct (convergent and discriminant) validity for the measurement model, and the evaluation of predictive and treatment-related validity for the causal model. One goal of the person-specific evaluation of CBCF validity is to develop an intraindividual statistical prediction model that has the advantages of actuarial prediction yet is fine-grained and tailored to the specific issues and life circumstances of greatest relevance for a particular individual. Greater attention to evaluation of validity issues in CBCF is important for future research comparing formulation-based to manualized treatment. Implications and applications to clinical practice and training are discussed.
This article describes a latent variables approach to empirically comparing the validity of independently generated, idiographic, cognitive case formulations (CCFs) of a single case. Each of two CCFs differed in the content of idiosyncratic cognitive schema (ICS) and their hypothesized relationships to distress. The CCFs were compared using multivariate time series ratings collected daily. First, the convergent and discriminant validity and dynamic structure of the ICSs hypothesized by each of the two clinicians were evaluated using confirmatory dynamic factor analysis. Second, the two CCFs were compared as to how well the ICSs predicted daily variability in latent distress variables. Compared to the novice clinician, the ICSs in the CCF of the clinician with expertise in CCF explained an average of twice the proportion of variance in the distress variables. This methodology permits the direct empirical comparison of the validity of alternative CCFs without appealing to external judges or criterion groups.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.