Taxonicity of anxiety sensitivity: a multi-national analysis

Bernstein, Amit; Zvolensky, Michael J.; Kotov, Roman; Arrindell, Willem A.; Taylor, Steven; Sandín, Bonifacio; Cox, Brian J.; Stewart, Sherry H.; Bouvard, Martine; Cárdenas, Samuel Jurado; Eifert, Georg H.; Schmidt, Norman B.

doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.11.006

Cited by 73 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At least one previous taxometric analysis of anxiety sensitivity that indicated a taxonic solution (Bernstein, Zvolensky, Kotov, et al, 2006) created indicators by summing the items that loaded on each of these lower order factors. Thus, consistent with the study, ASI-R items loading on each of the lower order factors were summed to create four composite indicators (Ruscio, Borkovec, & Ruscio, 2001).…”

Section: Asi-r Indicator Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Latent Structure of Anxiety Sensitivity—Revisited

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anxiety sensitivity has been implicated as a risk factor for the development and maintenance of panic and other anxiety disorders. Although researchers have generally assumed that anxiety sensitivity is a dimensional, rather than categorical, variable, recent taxometric research has raised questions concerning the accuracy of this assumption. The present study examined the latent structure of anxiety sensitivity by applying four taxometric procedures (MAXEIG, MAXCOV, MAMBAC, and L-Mode) to data collected from two large nonclinical samples (n = 1,025 and n = 744) using two distinct measures of anxiety sensitivity (Anxiety Sensitivity Profile and Anxiety Sensitivity Index—Revised). In contrast to previous taxometric analyses of anxiety sensitivity, results of the present research provided convergent evidence for a latent anxiety sensitivity dimension. Several potential explanations for the discrepancy between these findings and those of previous research are discussed, as well as the implications of these findings for the conceptualization and measurement of anxiety sensitivity.

show abstract

Section: Asi-r Indicator Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Latent Structure of Anxiety Sensitivity—Revisited

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It appears, therefore, that the heterogeneity of DS is best conceptualized as reflecting quantitative rather than qualitative differences among individuals (i.e., Gibb, Alloy, Abramson, Beevers, & Miller, 2004). It has been noted that exclusive reliance on any one measure of a given construct in taxometric analysis is limiting (i.e., Bernstein, Zvolensky, Kotov, et al, 2006). Indeed, the failure to demonstrate a latent categorical structure with the DSS indicators does not necessarily prove that there is no boundary to be found.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, there is now evidence that worry, a risk factor for and core symptom of generalized anxiety disorder, is dimensional (A. M. Ruscio, Borkovec, & Ruscio, 2001). In contrast, the findings of several recent studies of anxiety sensitivity have described this construct as a categorical, or taxonic, clinical syndrome (e.g., Bernstein, Zvolensky, Kotov, et al, 2006;Bernstein, Zvolensky, Stewart, Comeau, & Leen-Feldner, 2006;Bernstein, Zvolensky, Weems, Stickle, & Leen-Feldner, 2005;Schmidt, Kotov, Lerew, Joiner, & Ialongo, 2005). Thus, there appear to be both categorical and continuous risk factors for the development of anxiety disorders.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A taxometric study of the latent structure of disgust sensitivity: Converging evidence for dimensionality.

Olatunji¹,

Broman-Fulks²

2007

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disgust sensitivity has recently been implicated as a specific vulnerability factor for several anxiety-related disorders. However, it is not clear whether disgust sensitivity is a dimensional or categorical phenomenon. The present study examined the latent structure of disgust by applying three taxometric procedures (maximum eigenvalue, mean above minus below a cut, and latent-mode factor analysis) to data collected from 2 large nonclinical samples on 2 different measures of disgust sensitivity. Disgust sensitivity in the first sample (n=1,153) was operationalized by disgust reactions to food, animals, body products, sex, body envelope violations, death, hygiene, and sympathetic magic, as assessed by the Disgust Sensitivity Scale (J. Haidt, C. McCauley, & P. Rozin, 1994). Disgust Sensitivity Scale indicators of core, animal reminder, and contamination disgust were also examined in the 1st sample. Disgust sensitivity in the 2nd independent sample (n=1,318) was operationalized by disgust reactions to animals, injections and blood draws, mutilation and death, rotting foods, and odors, as assessed by the Disgust Emotion Scale (R. A. Kleinknecht, E. E. Kleinknecht, & R. M. Thorndike, 1997). Results across both samples provide converging evidence that disgust sensitivity is best conceptualized as a dimensional construct, present to a greater or lesser extent in all individuals. These findings are discussed in relation to the conceptualization and assessment of disgust sensitivity as a specific dimensional vulnerability for certain anxiety and related disorders.

show abstract

“…Such research has found that AS is taxonic with a relatively low base-rate taxon (approximately 9-15%). AS taxonicity has been observed across multiple measures and manifest indicators of the latent construct, and among multiple populations, including military cadets [29], adults from North America [30], adults from different regions of the world [31,32], youths [33] and across gender [34]. Initial studies have also demonstrated evidence of the incremental, predictive, discriminant and construct validity of the AS taxon with respect to anxiety problems (e.g., panic attacks and posttraumatic stress) and other panic-related vulnerability processes [16,29,30,31,35].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To help ensure that further theoretical development of AS validly reflects its latent structure and so is maximally clinically meaningful, both latent qualitative variability observed in taxometric research and quantitative variability observed in factor analytical research should be empirically and theoretically considered [32,36]. Two recent efforts have attempted to do so by sequentially applying taxometric and then confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses to the same data among youths [37] and adults [38].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%