Although the structure of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965) has been exhaustively evaluated, questions regarding dimensionality and direction of wording effects continue to be debated. To shed new light on these issues, we ask: (1) for what percentage of individuals is a unidimensional model adequate, (2) what additional percentage of individuals can be modeled with multidimensional specifications, and (3) what percentage of individuals respond so inconsistently that they cannot be well modeled? To estimate these percentages, we applied iteratively reweighted least squares (IRLS; Yuan & Bentler, 2000) to examine the structure of the RSES in a large, publicly available dataset. A distance measure, ds, reflecting a distance between a response pattern and an estimated model, was used for case weighting. We found that a bifactor model provided the best overall model fit, with one general factor and two wording-related group factors. But, based on dr values, a distance measure based on individual residuals, we concluded that approximately 86% of cases were adequately modeled through a unidimensional structure, and only an additional 3% required a bifactor model. Roughly 11% of cases were judged as “unmodelable” due to their significant residuals in all models considered. Finally, analysis of ds revealed that some, but not all, of the superior fit of the bifactor model is owed to that model’s ability to better accommodate implausible and possibly invalid response patterns, and not necessarily because it better accounts for the effects of direction of wording.

No abstract

Analytic bifactor rotations (Jennrich & Bentler, 2011, 2012) have been recently developed and made generally available, but are not well understood. The Jennrich-Bentler analytic bifactor rotations (bi-quartimin and bi-geomin) are an alternative to, and arguably an improvement upon, the less technically sophisticated Schmid-Leiman orthogonalization (Schmid & Leiman, 1957). We review the technical details that underlie the Schmid-Leiman and Jennrich-Bentler bifactor rotations, using simulated data structures to illustrate important features and limitations. For the Schmid-Leiman, we review the problem of inaccurate parameter estimates caused by the linear dependencies, sometimes called “proportionality constraints,” that are required to expand a p correlated factors solution into a (p+1) (bi)factor space. We also review the complexities involved when the data depart from perfect cluster structure (e.g., item cross-loading on group factors). For the Jennrich-Bentler rotations, we describe problems in parameter estimation caused by departures from perfect cluster structure. In addition, we illustrate the related problems of: (a) solutions that are not invariant under different starting values (i.e., local minima problems); and, (b) group factors collapsing onto the general factor. Recommendations are made for substantive researchers including examining all local minima and applying multiple exploratory techniques in an effort to identify an accurate model.

Multiple imputation has enjoyed widespread use in social science applications, yet the application of imputation-based inference to structural equation modeling has received virtually no attention in the literature. Thus, this study has 2 overarching goals: evaluate the application of Meng and Rubin's (1992) pooling procedure for likelihood ratio statistic to the SEM test of model fit, and explore the possibility of using this test statistic to define imputation-based versions of common fit indices such as the TLI, CFI, and RMSEA. Computer simulation results suggested that, when applied to a correctly specified model, the pooled likelihood ratio statistic performed well as a global test of model fit and was closely calibrated to the corresponding full information maximum likelihood (FIML) test statistic. However, when applied to misspecified models with high rates of missingness (30%-40%), the imputation-based test statistic generally exhibited lower power than that of FIML. Using the pooled test statistic to construct imputation-based versions of the TLI, CFI, and RMSEA worked well and produced indices that were well-calibrated with those of full information maximum likelihood estimation. This article gives Mplus and R code to implement the pooled test statistic, and it offers a number of recommendations for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record

Quantitative models of mental illness, such as the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), aim to optimize clinical assessment, which conventionally follows categorical diagnostic rubrics. The evidence base for these models is robust, but also uniform; available data come mostly from structured diagnostic interviews in nationally representative samples. It remains to be seen whether HiTOP adequately reflects mental illness as evaluated in routine clinical care, where diagnosis is often unsystematic and incomplete, relative to controlled research conditions. To test the generalizability of a quantitative nosology to real-world assessment contexts, we fit the HiTOP model to diagnoses in a large sample (N = 25,002) of treatment-seeking university students who were seen by health professionals in everyday practice. We then examined the criterion validity of model components in relation to clinically relevant outcomes (i.e., suicide attempts, self-injury, and binge drinking). Three related structures fit the data well: a correlated-factor model with internalizing, externalizing, and eating pathology dimensions; a higher-order model that added a general factor of psychopathology that spanned these 3 first-order factors; and a bifactor model that partitioned diagnostic (co)variance across a general factor and 3 orthogonal group factors. The first-order factors had expected patterns of criterion validity, and the general factor was a strong predictor of suicidality and self-injury, paralleling past research. Bifactor model group factors had interpretative problems, however. Across models, categorical diagnoses consistently offered minimal incremental validity relative to the transdiagnostic factors. We conclude that HiTOP is ecologically valid—explaining comorbidity patterns among diagnoses assigned “in the field”—and is poised to enhance clinical assessment and decision-making in routine care.