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) is a transdiagnostic mental health symptom measure that has shown promise in informing clinical diagnostic evaluations and as a screening tool for research. However, few studies have assessed the latent dimensionality of the DSM-XC. We examined the factor structure of the DSM-XC in a large convenience sample of participants with varying degrees of psychological health.

Methods

Participants (n=3533) enrolled in a protocol conducted at the National Institute of Mental Health ( NCT04339790 ). We used a factor analytic framework to evaluate an existing two-factor solution (Lace & Merz, 2020) and two additional candidate solutions.

Results

The Lace and Merz solution had acceptable fit. Exploratory factor analysis yielded two candidate solutions: a six-factor (characterized as mood, worry, activation, somatic, thoughts, and substance use) and a bifactor (general factor of non-specific psychopathology, residual factors characterized as internalizing and thought disorder), which both had good fit and full measurement invariance across age, sex, and enrollment date.

Conclusions

Our findings confirm that the DSM-XC may be conceptualized as a multidimensional instrument and provide a scoring solution for researchers who wish to measure distinct constructs. Future research on the psychometric profile of the DSM-XC is needed, focused on the validity of these candidate solutions and their performance across research populations and settings.

SUBMITTER: Gibbons A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8095225 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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.