Dataset Information

Examining the factor structure of the DSM-5 Level 1 cross-cutting symptom measure.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The DSM-5 Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure (DSM-XC) was developed by the American Psychiatric Association as a transdiagnostic mental health symptom survey. Despite its promise as a screening tool, few studies have assessed its latent dimensionality or provided guidance on interpreting responses. We examined the factor structure of the DSM-XC in a convenience sample of participants with varying degrees of psychopathology.

Methods

Participants (n = 3533) were enrolled in an online study on the mental health impact of COVID-19 (NCT04339790). We used a factor analytic framework with exploratory and confirmatory analyses to evaluate candidate factor solutions. Convergent validity analysis with concurrent study measures was also performed.

Results

Six-factor and bifactor candidate solutions both had good fit and full measurement invariance across age, sex, and enrollment date. The six-factor solution resulted in constructs labeled as: mood, worry, activation, somatic, thought, and substance use. A general psychopathology factor and two residual factors (mood and anxiety constructs) explained the variance of the bifactor solution.

Conclusions

Our analysis supports that the DSM-XC is a multidimensional instrument spanning many mental health symptoms. We provide scoring solutions for two factor structures that capture broader constructs of psychopathology. Use of a convenience sample may limit generalizability of findings.

SUBMITTER: Gibbons AB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10242195 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Examining the factor structure of the DSM-5 Level 1 cross-cutting symptom measure.

Gibbons Alison B AB Farmer Cristan C Shaw Jacob S JS Chung Joyce Y JY

International journal of methods in psychiatric research 20221101 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>The DSM-5 Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure (DSM-XC) was developed by the American Psychiatric Association as a transdiagnostic mental health symptom survey. Despite its promise as a screening tool, few studies have assessed its latent dimensionality or provided guidance on interpreting responses. We examined the factor structure of the DSM-XC in a convenience sample of participants with varying degrees of psychopathology.<h4>Methods</h4>Participants (n = 3533) were enroll ...[more]

PMID: 36318494

Similar Datasets

Project description:[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported online in Psychological Assessment on Nov 19 2018 (see record 2018-60122-001). In the article, the affiliations of multiple authors were incorrectly listed in the author byline and author note. For Daniel J. Lee, Michelle J. Bovin, Denise M. Sloan, Terence M. Keane, and Brian P. Marx, the affiliations should have read "National Center for PTSD, Boston, Massachusetts; VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts; and Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine." For author Paula P. Schnurr, the affiliations should have read "National Center for PTSD, White River Junction, Vermont; Department of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth." All versions of this article have been corrected.] The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) 4-factor model of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has demonstrated adequate fit in several confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) studies. Although several alternative measurement models have demonstrated better fit, there is no consensus yet on the best model, and newly proposed models lack sufficient construct validation. Notably, these studies have relied exclusively on questionnaire data, and thus their findings may be attributable to a method effect. This study examined the factor structure of DSM-5 PTSD symptoms using both questionnaire and interview data to determine the impact of assessment method on factor structure and construct validity of alternative model symptom clusters. Participants (N = 380) were veterans who completed the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5; Weathers et al., 2013) and the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5; Weathers et al., 2013). Fit was similar across models. However, the seven-factor Hybrid model (Armour et al., 2015) fit best. Limited evidence of a method effect was observed. Results of construct validity analyses were mixed; some of the newly proposed symptom clusters demonstrated hypothesized differential associations with external correlates, but others did not. These findings suggest that results of previous DSM-5 PTSD CFAs supporting the Hybrid model are not attributable to a method effect. However, observed limited difference in model fit and mixed construct validity evidence raise concerns regarding the value of parsing DSM-5 symptom clusters. Constructs implied by the new factors in the more complex measurement models of PTSD require greater explication and construct validation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Project description:Background and aimsMultiple national guidelines stress the importance for clinicians to possess good therapeutic skills for working with patients with significant relational difficulties (who may receive a diagnosis of personality disorder). Training clinicians in mentalization-based treatment skills (MBT-S) is one approach to address this. The main outcome measure used in MBT-S studies is the Knowledge and Application of MBT Questionnaire (KAMQ). However, an absence of research into the properties and validity of the KAMQ has limited the methodological quality of MBT-S evaluations so far. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the factor structure, internal consistency, reliability, and validity of the KAMQ.MethodsUsing an existing multiprofessional sample of 217 clinicians from 2014 to 2016, we undertook exploratory factor analysis to determine the factor structure and internal consistency of the KAMQ. Convergent validity of the measure with the Attitudes to Personality Disorder Questionnaire (APDQ) was assessed in a subset of this dataset where both questionnaires had been administered (n = 92). Additionally, by recruiting a new sample of 70 clinicians, we assessed the measure's test-retest reliability.ResultsFactor analysis found three factors underlying 17 of the 20 KAMQ items, relating to therapeutic skills in mentalizing, beliefs about applying MBT in practice, and specific MBT knowledge. The KAMQ was revised following the factor analysis to form the KAMQ-2 with 17 items. Internal consistency (α = .85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80-0.89) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.73-0.91) were good. In correlation analyses, the KAMQ-2 showed convergent validity with the main factor from the APDQ (n = 48; r s = 0.39, P < .01).ConclusionThe KAMQ-2 provides a short, reliable self-report instrument which probes clinicians' knowledge about mentalizing skills, and beliefs about using these. There was preliminary evidence for validity. The properties of the KAMQ-2 mean that more robust evaluation and development of MBT-S is now possible.

Dataset Information

Examining the factor structure of the DSM-5 Level 1 cross-cutting symptom measure.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Examining the factor structure of the DSM-5 Level 1 cross-cutting symptom measure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets