Building Theories on Top of, and Not Independent of, Statistical Models: The Case of the <i>p</i>-factor

Watts, Ashley L.; Lane, Sean P.; Bonifay, Wes; Steinley, Douglas; Meyer, Francisco A. C.

doi:10.1080/1047840x.2020.1853476

Cited by 60 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, it has been suggested that p may primarily represent functional impairment [ 7 ], neuroticism [ 8 ], cognitive abilities (see [ 1 ]), impulsive responsivity to emotion [ 9 ], and disordered thought [ 5 ]. However, there is a range of evidence suggesting that, in a purely statistical state, the p -factor may not realistically represent a substantive construct or property (e.g., [ 10 ]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, even though a bifactor model is often chosen over a correlated factors model (a model with no p -factor and correlated specific factors) due to better fit (e.g., [ 4 ]), Greene et al [ 2 ] showed that fit statistics unfairly favour the more accommodating bifactor model. These issues have led to multiple authors claiming that if the p -factor is to be a substantive construct, substantive p must be built “on-top” of statistical p [ 2 , 3 , 10 ]. That is, a theoretical construct of p not only must be informed by its statistical make up but also must incorporate predefined predictors and boundaries so that p can be falsified [ 3 , 10 , 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These issues have led to multiple authors claiming that if the p -factor is to be a substantive construct, substantive p must be built “on-top” of statistical p [ 2 , 3 , 10 ]. That is, a theoretical construct of p not only must be informed by its statistical make up but also must incorporate predefined predictors and boundaries so that p can be falsified [ 3 , 10 , 13 ]. The development of a universal substantive p may have important implications for etiological and treatment domains of psychopathology [ 1 , 3 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

One p-Factor for All? Exploring the Applicability of Structural Models of Psychopathology within Subgroups of a Population

Haywood

Baughman

Mullan

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structural models of psychopathology have emerged as an alternative to traditional categorical approaches. The bifactor model, which incorporates a general p-factor, has become the preferred structure. The p-factor is claimed to represent a substantive construct or property of the system; however, recent evidence suggests that it may be without substantive meaning. If a universal substantive p, and associated specific factors, is to be developed they not only must be applicable and consistent between populations but also must be applicable and consistent within subgroups of a population. This consistency needs to include not only factor loadings but also factor correlates. We used a simulated data approach to explore the applicability and consistency of four popular models of psychopathology to a range of heterogeneous subgroups and examined the consistency of their neurocognitive correlates. We found that only eight out of sixty-three subgroups fitted any of the models with all significant loadings, no negative loadings, no non-positive-definite identification issues, and no negative variance. All eight of these subgroups fit the correlated factors model, none fit the original bifactor model, four subgroups fit the revised bifactor model, and one subgroup fit the single-factor model. Correlates of the factors also varied substantially between the subgroups fitted to the same model. We discuss the implications of the findings, including the implications for the development of universal substantive factors of psychopathology.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

One p-Factor for All? Exploring the Applicability of Structural Models of Psychopathology within Subgroups of a Population

Haywood

Baughman

Mullan

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the traditional bifactor approach facilitates a useful description and, in the future, possible explanations of psychopathological symptoms at the population level. Therefore, we welcome future research examining a theoretical conceptualisation of p built on top of its statistical make up (e.g., [ 21 , 25 ]).…”

Section: Limitations Of the Research And Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As neurocognitive abilities are associated with a wide range of disorders, p as a substantive construct has promise for increasing our understanding of how neurocognitive abilities are involved in the development, maintenance, and treatment of psychopathology. However, without a theoretical consensus on what p is (See [ 20 , 21 , 25 ]), it may not greatly enhance our understanding of the association between neurocognitive abilities and psychopathology. Relatedly, as p is inherently fluid, changes in the makeup of p also result in substantive changes to the specific factors of the models, further limiting our ability to consistently interpret the associations between neurocognitive abilities and psychopathology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Going “Up” to Move Forward: S-1 Bifactor Models and the Study of Neurocognitive Abilities in Psychopathology

Haywood

Baughman

Mullan

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, structural models of psychopathology, that address the diagnostic stability and comorbidity issues of the traditional nosological approach, have dominated much of the psychopathology literature. Structural approaches have given rise to the p-factor, which is claimed to reflect an individual’s propensity toward all common psychopathological symptoms. Neurocognitive abilities are argued to be important to the development and maintenance of a wide range of disorders, and have been suggested as an important driver of the p-factor. However, recent evidence argues against p being an interpretable substantive construct, limiting conclusions that can be drawn from associations between p, the specific factors of a psychopathology model, and neurocognitive abilities. Here, we argue for the use of the S-1 bifactor approach, where the general factor is defined by neurocognitive abilities, to explore the association between neurocognitive performance and a wide range of psychopathological symptoms. We use simulation techniques to give examples of how S-1 bifactor models can be used to examine this relationship, and how the results can be interpreted.

show abstract

Deriving the Transdiagnostic Scales From the Personality Assessment Inventory and SPECTRA: Indices of Psychopathology: A Demonstration

Blais,

Kelley,

Ruchensky

et al. 2024

Clin Psychology and Psychoth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transdiagnostic models of psychopathology address many of the shortcomings common to categorical diagnostic systems. These empirically derived models conceptualize psychopathology as a few broad interrelated and hierarchically arranged dimensions, with an overarching general psychopathology dimension, the p‐factor, at the apex. While transdiagnostic models are gaining prominence in mental health research, the lack of available tools has limited their clinical translation. The present study explored the potential of creating transdiagnostic scales from the joint factor structure of the Personality Assessment Inventory, Alternative Model of Personality Disorder trait scales (AMPD), and the clinical scales of the SPECTRA: Indices of Psychopathology (SPECTRA). Exploratory factor analysis in a clinical sample (n = 212) identified five factors corresponding to the Negative Affect/Internalizing, Detachment, Antagonism/Externalizing, Disinhibition/Externalizing, and Thought Disorder transdiagnostic dimensions. Goldberg's “Bass‐Ackward” method supported a hierarchical structure. Five composite transdiagnostic scales were created by summing each factor's highest loading PAI and SPECTRA scales. A global psychopathology scale was created by summing the five composite scales. All the composite scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency. Correlations between the composite scales and the NEO Five‐Factor Inventory‐3 provide initial validity evidence for four composite and global scales. The composite thought disorder scale had no conceptually corresponding NEO domain. Clinical implications and study limitations are discussed.

show abstract

Building Theories on Top of, and Not Independent of, Statistical Models: The Case of the p-factor

Cited by 60 publications

References 84 publications

One p-Factor for All? Exploring the Applicability of Structural Models of Psychopathology within Subgroups of a Population

One p-Factor for All? Exploring the Applicability of Structural Models of Psychopathology within Subgroups of a Population

Going “Up” to Move Forward: S-1 Bifactor Models and the Study of Neurocognitive Abilities in Psychopathology

Deriving the Transdiagnostic Scales From the Personality Assessment Inventory and SPECTRA: Indices of Psychopathology: A Demonstration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About