Criterion Validity and Relationships between Alternative Hierarchical Dimensional Models of General and Specific Psychopathology

Abstract

Psychopathology can be viewed as a hierarchy of correlated dimensions. Many studies have supported this conceptualization, but they have used alternative statistical models with differing interpretations. In bifactor models, every symptom loads on both the general factor and one specific factor (e.g., internalizing), which partitions the total explained variance in each symptom between these orthogonal factors. In second-order models, symptoms load on one of several correlated lower-order factors. These lower-order factors load on a second-order general factor, which is defined by the variance shared by the lower-order factors. Thus, the factors in secondorder models are not orthogonal. Choosing between these valid statistical models depends on the hypothesis being tested. Because bifactor models define orthogonal phenotypes with distinct sources of variance, they are optimal for studies of shared and unique associations of the dimensions of psychopathology with external variables putatively relevant to etiology and mechanisms. Concerns have been raised, however, about the reliability of the orthogonal specific factors in bifactor models. We evaluated this concern using parent symptom ratings of 9-10 year olds in the ABCD Study. Psychometric indices indicated that all factors in both bifactor and second-order models exhibited at least adequate construct reliability and estimated replicability.The factors defined in bifactor and second-order models were highly to moderately correlated across models, but have different interpretations. All factors in both models demonstrated significant associations with external criterion variables of theoretical and clinical importance, but the interpretation of such associations in second-order models was ambiguous due to shared variance among factors.

The General Factor of Psychopathology in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study: A Comparison of Alternative Modeling Approaches

“…Our results with the outcome variables also dovetail with those of other recent investigations into how specific modeling choices (e.g., bifactor versus high-order factor models) affect the associations between the GFP and other variables (Forbes et al, 2020;Moore et al, 2020). That is, the consistency of GFP scores across the models observed here suggests that even specific operationalizations of the GFP not considered in the present investigation should lead to similar conclusions, which is what has been found.…”

“…Furthermore, several of the criterion were chosen to be consistent with another recent investigation into the functioning of certain GFP models in ABCD in order to build a broader pool of data about how model choice affects the associations between the GFP and other variables in ABCD (Moore et al, 2020).…”

Hierarchical models of psychopathology: empirical support, implications, and remaining issues

“…We recently used data from the large Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study to examine associations between the general factor of psychopathology in children and self‐report mea­sures of dispositions, including the positive urgency and negative urgency scales of a short form of the UPPS impulsivity mea­sure 58 . Consistent with the above hypothesis, these scales, which tap impulsive responding to positive and negative emotions, were both positively associated with the general factor of psychopathology defined in a bifactor model 25 .…”

“…A number of studies have also consistently reported significant associations of the general factor of psychopathology with both intelligence 19 and global and specific mea­sures of the executive functions 18,25,48‐50 . The term executive functions refers to a related set of highly heritable cognitive processes that are believed to regulate attention and foster adaptive goal‐directed behavior 51 .…”

“…One study raised a concern about bifactor models by reporting adequate H for the general and externalizing factors, but unacceptable H values for the internalizing factor 33 . However, other studies using stronger samples and measures have reported acceptable H values for both the general and all specific factors in bifactor models 21,25,34 .…”