Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Clinical Psychological Science
- Part II Observational Approaches
- 4 The Conceptual Foundations of Descriptive Psychopathology
- 5 Survey and Interview Methods
- 6 Psychometrics in Clinical Psychological Research
- 7 Latent Variable Models in Clinical Psychology
- 8 Psychiatric Epidemiology Methods
- Part III Experimental and Biological Approaches
- Part IV Developmental Psychopathology and Longitudinal Methods
- Part V Intervention Approaches
- Part VI Intensive Longitudinal Designs
- Part VII General Analytic Considerations
- Index
- References
7 - Latent Variable Models in Clinical Psychology
from Part II - Observational Approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 March 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Clinical Psychological Science
- Part II Observational Approaches
- 4 The Conceptual Foundations of Descriptive Psychopathology
- 5 Survey and Interview Methods
- 6 Psychometrics in Clinical Psychological Research
- 7 Latent Variable Models in Clinical Psychology
- 8 Psychiatric Epidemiology Methods
- Part III Experimental and Biological Approaches
- Part IV Developmental Psychopathology and Longitudinal Methods
- Part V Intervention Approaches
- Part VI Intensive Longitudinal Designs
- Part VII General Analytic Considerations
- Index
- References
Summary
Most of what clinical psychology concerns itself with is directly unobservable. Concepts like neuroticism and depression, but also learning and development, represent dispositions, states, or processes that must be inferred and cannot (currently) be directly measured. Latent variable modeling, as a statistical framework, encompasses a range of techniques that involve estimating the presence and effect of unobserved variables from observed data. This chapter provides a nontechnical overview of latent variable modeling in clinical psychology. Dimensional latent variable models are emphasized, although categorical and hybrid models are touched on briefly. Challenges with specific models, such as the bifactor model are discussed. Examples draw from the psychopathology literature.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Aslinger, E. N., Manuck, S. B., Pilkonis, P. A., Simms, L. J., & Wright, A. G. C. (2018). Narcissist or Narcissistic? Evaluation of the Latent Structure of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127(5), 496–502.Google Scholar
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438.Google Scholar
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, K. A. (2002). Latent Variables in Psychology and the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 605–634.Google Scholar
Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent Curve Models: A Structural Equation Perspective. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bonifay, W. (2017). On the Complexity of Item Response Theory Models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52(4), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornovalova, M. A., Levy, R., Gratz, K. L., & Lejuez, C. W. (2010). Understanding the Heterogeneity of BPD Symptoms through Latent Class Analysis: Initial Results and Clinical Correlates among Inner-City Substance Users. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 233–245.Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The Theoretical Status of Latent Variables. Psychological Review, 110(2), 203–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research (2nd edn.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Brown, T. A., Chorpita, B. F., & Barlow, D. H. (1998). Structural Relationships among Dimensions of the DSM-IV Anxiety and Mood Disorders and Dimensions of Negative Affect, Positive Affect, and Autonomic Arousal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107(2), 179–192.Google Scholar
Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., Goldman-Mellor, S. J., Harrington, H., Israel, S., … Poulton, R. (2014). The P Factor One General Psychopathology Factor in the Structure of Psychiatric Disorders? Clinical Psychological Science, 2(2), 119–137.Google Scholar
Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2018). All for One and One for All: Mental Disorders in One Dimension. American Journal of Psychiatry, 175(9), 831–844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale Development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. (2010). Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis: With Applications in the Social Behavioral, and Health Sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Conway, C., Hammen, C., & Brennan, P. A. (2012). Comparison of Latent Class, Latent Trait, and Factor Mixture Models of DSM-IV Borderline Personality Disorder Criteria in a Community Setting: Implications for DSM-5. Journal of Personality Disorders, 26, 793–803.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L., & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct Validity in Psychological Tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.Google Scholar
Eaton, N. R., Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Keyes, K. M., Skodol, A. E., Wall, M., Hasin, D. S., … Grant, B. F. (2013). The Structure and Predictive Validity of the Internalizing Disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 86–92.Google Scholar
Edwards, J.R., & Bagozzi, R.P. (2000). On the Nature and Direction of Relationships between Constructs and Measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155–174.Google Scholar
Forbes, M. K., Kotov, R., Ruggero, C. J., Watson, D., Zimmerman, M., & Krueger, R. F. (2017). Delineating the Joint Hierarchical Structure of Clinical and Personality Disorders in an Outpatient Psychiatric Sample. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 79, 19–30.Google Scholar
Fournier, J. C., Wright, A. G. C., Tackett, J. L., Uliaszek, A., Pilkonis, P. A., Manuck, S. B., & Bagby, R. M. (2019). Decoupling Personality and Acute Psychiatric Symptoms in a Depressed and a Community Sample. Clinical Psychological Science, 7(3), 566–581.Google Scholar
Gignac, G. E. (2016). The Higher-Order Model Imposes a Proportionality Constraint: That Is Why the Bifactor Model Tends to Fit Better. Intelligence, 55, 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, J. M., Wright, A. G. C., Beeney, J. E., Lazarus, S., Scott, L. N., Stepp, S. D., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2017). Interpersonal Problems across Levels of the Psychopathology Hierarchy. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 79, 53–69.Google Scholar
Gore, W. L., & Widiger, T. A. (2013). The DSM-5 Dimensional Trait Model and Five-Factor Models of Personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(3), 816–821.Google Scholar
Greene, A. L., Eaton, N. R., Li, K., Forbes, M. K., Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., … Kotov, R. (2019). Are Fit Indices Used to Test Psychopathology Structure Biased? A Simulation Study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(7), 740–764.Google Scholar
Hallquist, M., & Pilkonis, P. (2012). Refining the Phenotype of Borderline Personality Disorder. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(3), 228–246.Google Scholar
Hallquist, M. N. & Wright, A. G. C. (2014). Mixture Modeling Methods for the Assessment of Normal and Abnormal Personality Part I: Cross-Sectional Models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(3), 256–268.Google Scholar
Holzinger, K. J., & Swineford, F. (1937). The Bi-Factor Method. Psychometrika, 2(1), 41–54.Google Scholar
Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How Should the Internal Structure of Personality Inventories Be Evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 332–346.Google Scholar
Horn, J. L. (1965). A Rationale and Test for the Number of Factors in Factor Analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kotov, R., Ruggero, C. J., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Yuan, Q., & Zimmerman, M. (2011). New Dimensions in the Quantitative Classification of Mental Illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68, 1003–1011.Google Scholar
Krueger, R. F. (1999). The Structure of Common Mental Disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 921–926.Google Scholar
Lahey, B. B., Applegate, B., Hakes, J. K., Zald, D. H., Hariri, A. R., & Rathouz, P. J. (2012). Is There a General Factor of Prevalent Psychopathology during Adulthood? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(4), 971–977.Google Scholar
Lahey, B. B., Rathouz, P. J., Keenan, K., Stepp, S. D., Loeber, R., & Hipwell, A. E. (2015). Criterion Validity of the General Factor of Psychopathology in a Prospective Study of Girls. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(4), 415–422.Google Scholar
Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Equation Analysis. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansolf, M., & Reise, S. P. (2017). When and Why the Second-Order and Bifactor Models Are Distinguishable. Intelligence, 61, 120–129.Google Scholar
Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2005). Categorical and Continuous Models of Liability to Externalizing Disorders: A Direct Comparison in NESARC. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 1352–1359.Google Scholar
Masyn, K. E., Henderson, C. E., & Greenbaum, P. E. (2010). Exploring the Latent Structures of Psychological Constructs in Social Development Using the Dimensional-Categorical Spectrum. Social Development, 19(3), 470–493.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. B., Hodge, K. J., Wells, K. E., & Watkins, M. W. (2015). Are Fit Indices Biased in Favor of Bi-Factor Models in Cognitive Ability Research? A Comparison of Fit in Correlated Factors, Higher-Order, and Bi-Factor Models via Monte Carlo Simulations. Journal of Intelligence, 3(1), 2–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulaik, S. (2010). Foundations of factor analysis (2nd edn.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Murray, A. L., & Johnson, W. (2013). The Limitations of Model Fit in Comparing the Bi-Factor versus Higher-Order Models of Human Cognitive Ability Structure. Intelligence, 41(5), 407–422.Google Scholar
Newsom, J. T. (2015). Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling: A Comprehensive Introduction. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oltmanns, J. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2016). Self-Pathology, the Five-Factor Model, and Bloated Specific Factors: A Cautionary Tale. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(3), 423–434.Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., Wichman, A. L., Briggs, N. E., & MacCallum, R. C. (2008). Latent Growth Curve Modeling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Reise, S. P., Kim, D. S., Mansolf, M., & Widaman, K. F. (2016). Is the Bifactor Model a Better Model or Is It Just Better at Modeling Implausible Responses? Application of Iteratively Reweighted Least Squares to the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(6), 818–838.Google Scholar
Ruscio, J., & Roche, B. (2012). Determining the Number of Factors to Retain in an Exploratory Factor Analysis Using Comparison Data of Known Factorial Structure. Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 282–292.Google Scholar
Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2010). A Comparative Investigation of Rotation Criteria within Exploratory Factor Analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 73–103.Google Scholar
Sharp, C., Wright, A. G. C., Fowler, J. C., Freuh, C., Allen, J. G., Oldham, J., & Clark, L. A. (2015). The Structure of Personality Pathology: Both General (“g”) and Specific (“s”) Factors? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(2), 387–398.Google Scholar
Spearman, C. (1904). General Intelligence, Objectively Determined and Measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.Google Scholar
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the Number of Components from the Matrix of Partial Correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321–327.Google Scholar
Walton, K. E., Ormel, J., & Krueger, R. F. (2011). The Dimensional Nature of Externalizing Behaviors in Adolescence: Evidence from a Direct Comparison of Categorical, Dimensional, and Hybrid Models. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 553–561.Google Scholar
Wendt, L. P., Wright, A. G. C., Pilkonis, P. A., Nolte, T, Fonagy, P., Montague, R. P., … Zimmermann, J. (in press). Evaluating the Latent Structure of Interpersonal Problems: Validity of Dimensions and Classes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.Google Scholar
Witkiewitz, K., King, K., McMahon, R. J., Wu, J., Luk, J., Bierman, K. L., … Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2013). Evidence for a Multi-Dimensional Latent Structural Model of Externalizing Disorders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 223–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, A. G. C. (2017). The Current State and Future of Factor Analysis in Personality Disorder Research. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 8(1), 14–25.Google Scholar
Wright, A. G. C., & Simms, L. J. (2014). On the Structure of Personality Disorder Traits: Conjoint Analyses of the CAT-PD, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3 Trait Models. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5(1), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, A. G. C., & Simms, L. J. (2015). A Metastructural Model of Mental Disorders and Pathological Personality Traits. Psychological Medicine, 45(11), 2309–2319.Google Scholar
Wright, A.G.C., & Zimmermann, J. (2015). At the Nexus of Science and Practice: Answering Basic Clinical Questions in Personality Disorder Assessment and Diagnosis with Quantitative Modeling Techniques. In Huprich, S. (Ed.), Personality Disorders: Toward Theoretical and Empirical Integration in Diagnosis and Assessment (pp. 109–144). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Wright, A. G. C., Krueger, R. F., Hobbs, M. J., Markon, K. E., Eaton, N. R., & Slade, T. (2013). The Structure of Psychopathology: Toward an Expanded Quantitative Empirical Model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(1), 281–294.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by