Sean P. Lane

Three Concerns With Applying a Bifactor Model as a Structure of Psychopathology

Recently, bifactor modeling applications in clinical measurement have proliferated (e.g., Caspi et al., 2014; Lahey et al., 2012; Simms, Grös, Watson, & O’Hara, 2008; Vanheule, Desmet, Groenvynck, Rosseel, & Fontaine, 2008). It is critical, however, to distinguish between two types of applications. The first focuses on using the bifactor model as a tool for understanding the psychometrics of an assessment scale (see Rodriguez, Reise, & Haviland, 2016a, 2016b). This type has proven invaluable for informing the degree to which a measure yields an univocal total score (Reise, Moore, & Haviland, 2010) and, relatedly, the extent to which subscales representing theoretically distinct constructs (i.e., group factors) yield reliable scores after accounting for the general factor (Reise, Bonifay, & Haviland, 2013). The second is far more ambitious and leverages a bifactor model to represent the general and group factor structure of an entire domain of psychological functioning. This is the type in question in the target article ( Snyder, Young, & Hankin, 2016, this issue), wherein correlations among psychopathology items are modeled as reflecting a single psychopathology dimension, p, as well as orthogonal internalizing/externalizing group factors. In this and related studies, it is the structure, rather than the psychometric properties, that is of paramount theoretical interest. We raise three issues with bifactor modeling as it is applied to the “structure of psychopathology”— interpretability, model fit, and validation—and we point to recent psychometric tools for bifactor model evaluation. In the initial development of the bifactor method, Holzinger and Swineford (1937) stated that group factors are derived from the residual correlations that remain after extracting the general factor. Although estimation methods have changed radically since 1937, interpretation of group factors that are orthogonal to a general factor remains challenging. In certain applications (e.g., Cho, Cohen, & Kim, 2014), group factors are not viewed as meaningful subconstructs of a test but rather as methodological “nuisances” that impede measurement of the primary construct of interest. Assuming, however, that group factors are meaningful, how should they be interpreted? They must be construed as substantively unique, measuring subconstructs exclusive to the general factor. Snyder et al. (2016, this issue) and others conclude that the structure of psychopathology includes internalizing/ externalizing group factors; it is unclear whether, or to what degree, these factors can be interpreted as traits orthogonal to the p factor. It may also be difficult to interpret the general dimension in a bifactor model. Previous research has noted that a positive manifold does not imply a single general causal structure (e.g., a single neuropsychobiological structure that causes variation across content-diverse indicators; van der Maas et al., 2006). Although strong correlations among measures may suggest a bifactor structure, that does not imply that such a structure exists at the genotypic level (e.g., Cohen, Cohen, Teresi, Marchi, & Velez, 1990). Thus, it could be that the internalizing/ externalizing factors identified by Snyder et al. (2016, this issue) are interpreted correctly but that the emergence of a general p factor, rather than being generated by a single general latent trait, is the result of some different process altogether. Researchers must carefully investigate such issues before considering the bifactor model seriously as a foundational structure for clinical research. Of particular concern is the bifactor model’s tendency to show superior goodness of fit in model comparison studies. In Snyder et al. (2016, this issue), the bifactor structure outperformed both the unidimensional and the two (correlated) factor alternatives regarding goodness of fit and was thereby selected as the best representation of psychopathology. However, the superior performance of the bifactor model may be a symptom of “overfitting”— that is, modeling not only the important trends in the 657069 CPXXXX10.1177/2167702616657069Bonifay et al.Bifactor Model as a Structure of Psychopathology research-article2016

Affective Dynamics in Psychopathology.

We discuss three varieties of affective dynamics (affective instability, emotional inertia, and emotional differentiation). In each case, we suggest how these affective dynamics should be operationalized and measured in daily life using time-intensive methods, like ecological momentary assessment or ambulatory assessment, and recommend time-sensitive analyses that take into account not only the variability but also the temporal dependency of reports. Studies that explore how these affective dynamics are associated with psychological disorders and symptoms are reviewed, and we emphasize that these affective processes are within a nexus of other components of emotion regulation.

For Members Only: Ingroup Punishment of Fairness Norm Violations in the Ultimatum Game

Although group membership has many privileges, members are expected to reciprocate those privileges. We tested whether in-group members would be punished more harshly than out-group members for marginal fairness norm violations within ultimatum game bargaining interactions. Participants considered monetary splits (of US

Trajectories of BMI from early childhood through early adolescence: SES and psychosocial predictors

20) from in-group and out-group proposers, which ranged in proportion. Accepting an offer yielded the proposed payout; rejecting it caused each player to earn nothing—a punishment of the proposer at a personal cost. Participants exacted stricter costly punishment on racial in-group than out-group members for marginally unfair offers (Study 1), an effect that was replicated with college group membership and magnified among strong in-group identifiers (Study 2). Importantly, ultimatum game decisions were driven by fairness perceptions rather than proposer evaluations (Study 3), suggesting our effects reflected norm enforcement and not esteem preservation. These findings illuminate a previously unexplored process for maintaining group-based norms that may promote in-group favoritism.

Understanding the costs of support transactions in daily life.

OBJECTIVES This study examined the ways in which body mass index (BMI) percentile - an identified risk factor for overweight and cardiovascular disease in adulthood - develops from birth through early adolescence. In addition, we examined whether psychosocial factors, such as parenting style and maternal depression, mediated the link between socio-economic status (SES) and BMI growth. Design. Data were obtained from phases 1-3 of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD) - a longitudinal study that followed children from 10 communities in the United States from birth to age 11. METHODS We applied growth mixture models to identify distinct subtypes of BMI development. Within these models, we performed between- and within-class mediation analyses to examine whether SES predicted class membership or differences in development within each class via maternal depression and parenting styles. RESULTS Results identified three prototypic trajectories of BMI percentile growth, elevated, steady increase, and stable. We found evidence for both between- and within-class mediation, suggesting multiple pathways by which SES can affect BMI development. CONCLUSIONS These findings add to the research that suggests that being in a family with a low SES is associated with falling into patterns of development characterized by early and lasting increases in BMI relative to ones peers, and that this association is partly accounted for by maternal depression and parenting styles. STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION What is already known? Past research has found evidence that patterns of childhood overweight are impacted by socioeconomic status through psychosocial factors like parenting and depression. This evidence is often limited to individual points in time where neglectful, permissive, and authoritarian parenting and higher levels of maternal depression are associated with higher levels of overweight status among children from infancy to adolescence. However, little research has linked together whether the children who receive non-authoritative parenting and are overweight in infancy are the same children who are overweight in adolescence. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD?: • Evidence for 3 different prototypes of BMI percentile growth over the course of childhood approaching adolescence. • Adds complexity re the influence of parenting styles as an influence on patterns of weight gain. • Buttresses existing research as to early and lasting effects of SES on patterns of BMI.

Limits of Current Approaches to Diagnosis Severity Based on Criterion Counts: An Example with DSM-5 Alcohol Use Disorder.

The benefits of close relationships for mental and physical health are well documented. One of the mechanisms presumed to underlie these effects is social support, whereby close others provide practical and emotional assistance in times of need. Although there is no doubt that generalized perceptions of support availability are beneficial, research examining actual instances of support receipt has found unexpectedly mixed results. Receiving support sometimes has positive effects, but null or even negative effects are common. In this article, we review our multimethod program of research that seeks to understand and explain the costs of receiving social support. We focus on reductions in the recipients sense of relationship equity and self-efficacy as mechanisms of this effect and examine a number of other moderating factors. Although we have found that receiving support incurs costs on average, there is considerable variability yet to be explained. Using diary data from 312 persons preparing to take a challenging exam, we examined the potential of individual differences in neuroticism, agreeableness, and attachment insecurity to explain variability in experienced support costs. We close with new questions about why received support may be beneficial or benign in some situations while being especially toxic in others.

Power struggles: Estimating sample size for multilevel relationships research

Within the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), some diagnoses are now associated with a severity gradient based on the number of diagnostic criteria satisfied. Reasons for questioning the validity of this approach include the implicit assumptions of equal criterion severity and strict additivity of criteria combinations. To assess the implications of heterogeneity of criterion configurations on severity grading, we examined the association between all observed combinations of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder criteria endorsement, at each level of number of criteria endorsed, and multiple validity measures among 22,177 past-year drinkers from Wave 2 of the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcoholism and Related Conditions (NESARC). Substantial variability of implied severity across criteria combinations was observed at each level of endorsement, with nontrivial overlap in implied severity across criterion counts. Findings suggest severity indices are at best imprecise, and potentially misleading. These problems are likely inherent in traditional polythetic approaches to diagnosis and almost certainly applicable to other disorders. Approaches for improving severity grading are proposed.

Meta-analysis of DSM alcohol use disorder criteria severities: structural consistency is only 'skin deep'.

Conducting research on human relationships entails special challenges of design and analysis. Many important questions benefit from the study of dyads and families, and studies of relationships in natural settings often involve longitudinal and/or clustered designs. In turn, power analyses for such studies require additional considerations, because multilevel statistical models (or structural equation modeling equivalents) are often used to analyze relationships data. Power calculations in multilevel models involve the difficult task of specifying hypothesized values for a large number of parameters. Planning studies can also involve power trade-offs, including whether to prioritize the number of dyads sampled or the number of repeated measurements per dyad. Unfortunately, the relationships literature provides limited guidance on how to deal with these issues. In this article, we present a data simulation method for estimating power for commonly used relationships research designs. We also illustrate the method using two worked examples from relationships research.

Alcohol Craving and Consumption in Borderline Personality Disorder When, Where, and With Whom

BACKGROUND Item response theory (IRT) analyses of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and other psychological disorders are a predominant method for assessing overall and individual criterion severity for psychiatric diagnosis. However, no investigation has established the consistency of the relative criteria severities across different samples. METHOD PubMed/Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science and ProQuest databases were queried for entries relating to alcohol use and IRT. Study data were extracted using a standardized data entry sheet. Consistency of reported criteria severities across studies was analysed using generalizability theory to estimate generalized intraclass correlations (ICCs). RESULTS A total of 451 citations were screened and 34 papers (30 unique samples) included in the research synthesis. The AUD criteria set exhibited low consistency in the ordering of criteria using both traditional [ICC = 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06-0.56] and generalized (ICC = 0.18, 95% CI 0.15-0.21) approaches. These results were partially accounted for by previously studied factors such as age and type of sample (e.g. clinical v. community), but the largest source of unreliability was the diagnostic instrument employed. CONCLUSIONS Despite the robust finding of unidimensional structure of AUDs, inconsistency in the relative severities across studies suggests low replicability, challenging the generalizability of findings from any given study. Explicit modeling of well-studied factors like age and sample type is essential and increases the generalizability of findings. Moreover, while the development of structured diagnostic interviews is considered a landmark contribution toward improving psychiatric research, variability across instruments has not been fully appreciated and is substantial.

What can individual differences tell us about the specialization of function

Substance use is highly prevalent in our society, and substance use disorders are comorbid with most psychiatric disorders, including borderline personality disorder (BPD). Craving is a fundamental feature of addiction and disorder, yet the contexts in which craving occurs and is associated with substance use is still underresearched. We examined alcohol craving and consumption in a sample of 56 BPD individuals and a comparison group of community drinkers (COM; n = 60) who carried electronic diaries for approximately 21 days. BPD individuals reported more craving than COM individuals in most contexts. Compared with COM individuals, elevated craving in BPD individuals was paralleled by more drinking when at work, at home, and with romantic partners, coworkers, and children. These findings identify contexts of particular relevance to those with BPD and other mood/anxiety disorders in which craving may lead to risky and maladaptive alcohol use.