Bifactor models of psychopathology using multi‐informant and multi‐instrument dimensional measures in the ABCD study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Due to limitations of categorical definitions of mental illness, there is a need for quantitative empirical investigations of the dimensional structure of psychopathology. Using exploratory bifactor methods, this study investigated a comprehensive and representative structure of psychopathology in children to better understand how psychotic-like experiences (PLEs), autism spectrum disorder (ASD) symptoms, impulsivity, and sensitivity to reward and punishment, may be integrated into extant general factor models of psychopathology. Methods: (ABCD) Study. We built on previous modeling frameworks by conducting both split sample and full sample factor analytic approaches that harnessed recent methodological advances in bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling (B-ESEM) to examine a wide range of psychopathology measures not previously integrated into a single analysis. Validity of psychopathology dimensions was examined by investigating associations with sex, age, cognition, imaging measures, and medical service usage. Results: All four factor analytic models showed excellent fit and similar structure within informant. PLEs loaded most highly onto a general psychopathology factor, suggesting that they may reflect non-specific risk for mental illness. ASD symptoms loaded separately from attention/hyperactivity symptoms. Symptoms of impulsivity and sensitivity to reward and punishment loaded onto specific factors, distinct from externalizing and internalizing factors. All identified factors were associated with clinically relevant risk factors, providing preliminary evidence for their construct validity. Conclusion: By integrating diverse child-report and parent-report psychopathology measures for children in the ABCD sample, we deliver data on the quantitative structure of psychopathology for an exceptionally large set of measurements and discuss implications for the field.
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 | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".