ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2023
Harmonizing bifactor models of psychopathology between distinct assessment instruments: Reliability, measurement invariance, and authenticity.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improved Estimation of Correlation Accuracy for Machine Learning Brain-Phenotype Associations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Psychometric Properties of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-42 and DASS-21) in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Using natural language processing to facilitate the harmonisation of mental health questionnaires: a validation study using real-world data.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- Harmonizing bifactor models of psychopathology between distinct assessment instruments: Reliability, measurement invariance, and authenticity.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesModel configuration is important for mental health data harmonization. We provide a method to investigate the performance of different bifactor model configurations to harmonize different instruments.
methodsWe used data from six samples from the Reproducible Brain Charts initiative (N = 8,606, ages 5-22 years, 41.0% females). We harmonized items from two psychopathology instruments, Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and GOASSESS, based on semantic content. We estimated bifactor models using confirmatory factor analysis, and calculated their model fit, factor reliability, between-instrument invariance, and authenticity (i.e., the correlation and factor score difference between the harmonized and original models).
resultsFive out of 12 model configurations presented acceptable fit and were instrument-invariant. Correlations between the harmonized factor scores and the original full-item models were high for the p-factor (>0.89) and small to moderate (0.12-0.81) for the specific factors. 6.3%-50.9% of participants presented factor score differences between harmonized and original models higher than 0.5 z-score.
conclusionsThe CBCL-GOASSESS harmonization indicates that few models provide reliable specific factors and are instrument-invariant. Moreover, authenticity was high for the p-factor and moderate for specific factors. Future studies can use this framework to examine the impact of harmonizing instruments in psychiatric research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.