Using Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) to Examine the Internal Structure of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have reported the factor structure of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results show models with different number of factors, high correlations between factors, and symptoms that belong to different factors in different models without affecting the fit index. These elements could suppose the existence of considerable item cross-loading, the overlap of different factors or even the presence of a general factor that explains the items common source of variance. The aim is to provide new evidence regarding the factor structure of PTSD using CFA and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). In a sample of 1,372 undergraduate students, we tested six different models using CFA and two models using ESEM and ESEM bifactor analysis. Trauma event and past-month PTSD symptoms were assessed with Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 (LEC-5) and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). All six tested CFA models showed good fit indexes (RMSEA = .051-.056, CFI = .969-.977, TLI = .965-.970), with high correlations between factors (M = .77, SD = .09 to M = .80, SD = .09). The ESEM models showed good fit indexes (RMSEA = .027-.036, CFI = .991-.996, TLI = .985-.992). These models confirmed the presence of cross-loadings on several items as well as loads on a general factor that explained 76.3% of the common variance. The results showed that most of the items do not meet the assumption of dimensional exclusivity, showing the need to expand the analysis strategies to study the symptomatic organization of PTSD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".