Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Structure of Adult ADHD Symptoms

Park, Joanne L.; Silveira, Mason M.; Elliott, Madison; Savalei, Victoria; Johnston, Charlotte

doi:10.1007/s10862-018-9698-y

Cited by 14 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is because statistically, the specific factors are seen as 'nuisance' variables, whereas from a theoretical viewpoint, the specific factors constitute substantially meaning factors that are not accounted for by the general factor. According to Park et al [21], the appropriate explanation will depend on the reliability, stability, and incrementally validities of the specific factors. Another concern relates to the fact that the bi-factor model will always fit better than the corresponding first-order factor model because they can better accommodate nonsense response patterns in the dataset, thereby making it appear better even if this is not actually the case.…”

Section: Limitations Of Cfa and Bi-factor Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modelling of the factor structure of the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales-21

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) involves a simple structure firstorder three-factor oblique model, with factors for depression, anxiety, and stress. Recently, concerns have been raised over the value of using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for studying the factor structure of scales in general. However, such concerns can be circumvented using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). Consequently, the present study used CFA and ESEM with target rotation to examine the factor structure of the DASS-21 among an adult community. It compared first-order CFA, ESEM with target rotation, bifactor CFA (BCFA), and bi-factor BESEM with target rotation models with group/specific factors for depression, anxiety, and stress. A total of 738 adults (males = 374, and females = 364; M = 25.29 years; SD = 7.61 years) completed the DASS-21. While all models examined showed good global fit values, one or more of the group/specific factors in the BCFA, ESEM with target rotation and BESEM with target rotation models were poorly defined. As the firstorder CFA model was most parsimonious, with well-defined factors that were also supported in terms of their reliabilities and validities, this model was selected as the preferred DASS-21 model. The implications of the findings for use and revision of the DASS-21 are discussed. Confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modeling of the structure of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms The Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) is a widely used questionnaires. It has three separate, but correlated, scales (with seven items for each scale) for depression (assessing dysphoria, low self-esteem, and lack of incentive), anxiety (assessing somatic and subjective responses to anxiety and fear), and stress (assessing negative affectivity responses, such as nervous tension and irritability). Thus, the theoretically proposed factor model for the DASS-21 is

show abstract

Section: Limitations Of Cfa and Bi-factor Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Morin et al [18] have proposed an integrated test of multidimensionality procedure for this purpose. Additionally, Park et al [21] have suggested evaluation of the reliabilities and validities of the factors in this model, especially the incremental validities of the specific factors.…”

Section: Limitations Of Cfa and Bi-factor Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modelling of the factor structure of the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales-21

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another important issue concerns the criteria applied in the selection of a final model. Inadequate selection criteria, such as exclusive reliance on model fit without consideration of other important indices, may contribute to interpretational challenges and problematic conclusions regarding the structure of ADHD symptoms (Arias et al., 2018; Bonifay et al., 2017; Park et al., 2018; A. Rodriguez et al., 2016a).…”

Section: A Brief History Of Adhd In the Dsmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In response, numerous studies have examined the structure of ADHD symptoms using self-report measures developed to assess symptoms in adults (e.g., Gibbins et al., 2012; Glutting et al., 2005; Proctor & Prevatt, 2009; Span et al., 2002). Although some studies have supported a two-factor model of ADHD symptoms consistent with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM ; APA, 2013; Smith & Johnson, 1998), others have not supported this conclusion (Glutting et al., 2005; Park et al., 2018; Proctor & Prevatt, 2009; Span et al., 2002). Over the past decade, studies have increasingly advocated a more complex bifactor model to represent symptom presentation in adults (e.g., Gibbins et al., 2012; Stanton et al., 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, recent criticisms concerning the application and interpretation of the bifactor model in studies evaluating the structure of psychopathology have called attention to the need for more rigorous evaluation of this approach (Bonifay et al., 2017). Heeding this call, several studies have revisited the contribution of the bifactor model and found little evidence to indicate this structure underlies ADHD symptoms in adults (Arias et al., 2018; Park et al., 2018). The purpose of the current study is to further investigate the structure of ADHD symptoms in adulthood by examining different factor structures in a college student sample as assessed by the Current Symptoms Scale (CSS; Barkley & Murphy, 2006), a widely used self-report measure of present symptoms (P.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Factor Structure and Gender Invariance of ADHD Symptoms in College Students

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies examining the factor structure of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in adults using self-report measures have shown mixed results, supporting two-, three-, and bifactor solutions. The current study further investigated the structure of ADHD symptoms in adults using the Current Symptoms Scale and rigorous model evaluation in a sample of 892 college students. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to analyze and compare five-factor structures; a single-factor model, a two-factor model, a three-factor model, and two bifactor models. A single-factor model with correlated residuals best fit the data. Factor correlations with nearly all related constructs (i.e., symptoms of oppositional defiant disorder, depression, impairment, previous ADHD diagnosis, grades, and substance use) were significant in the expected directions and the model was invariant across gender. These findings contribute to a growing body of work suggesting a unidimensional factor may best represent ADHD symptoms in adults. Implications are discussed.

show abstract