The usage of psychological networks that conceptualize behavior as a complex interplay of psychological and other components has gained increasing popularity in various research fields. While prior publications have tackled the topics of estimating and interpreting such networks, little work has been conducted to check how accurate (i.e., prone to sampling variation) networks are estimated, and how stable (i.e., interpretation remains similar with less observations) inferences from the network structure (such as centrality indices) are. In this tutorial paper, we aim to introduce the reader to this field and tackle the problem of accuracy under sampling variation. We first introduce the current state-of-the-art of network estimation. Second, we provide a rationale why researchers should investigate the accuracy of psychological networks. Third, we describe how bootstrap routines can be used to (A) assess the accuracy of estimated network connections, (B) investigate the stability of centrality indices, and (C) test whether network connections and centrality estimates for different variables differ from each other. We introduce two novel statistical methods: for (B) the correlation stability coefficient, and for (C) the bootstrapped difference test for edge-weights and centrality indices. We conducted and present simulation studies to assess the performance of both methods. Finally, we developed the free R-package bootnet that allows for estimating psychological networks in a generalized framework in addition to the proposed bootstrap methods. We showcase bootnet in a tutorial, accompanied by R syntax, in which we analyze a dataset of 359 women with posttraumatic stress disorder available online.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Recent years have seen an emergence of network modeling applied to moods, attitudes, and problems in the realm of psychology. In this framework, psychological variables are understood to directly affect each other rather than being caused by an unobserved latent entity. In this tutorial, we introduce the reader to estimating the most popular network model for psychological data: the partial correlation network. We describe how regularization techniques can be used to efficiently estimate a parsimonious and interpretable network structure in psychological data. We show how to perform these analyses in R and demonstrate the method in an empirical example on posttraumatic stress disorder data. In addition, we discuss the effect of the hyperparameter that needs to be manually set by the researcher, how to handle non-normal data, how to determine the required sample size for a network analysis, and provide a checklist with potential solutions for problems that can arise when estimating regularized partial correlation networks. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Researchers have studied psychological disorders extensively from a common cause perspective, in which symptoms are treated as independent indicators of an underlying disease. In contrast, the causal systems perspective seeks to understand the importance of individual symptoms and symptom-to-symptom relations. In the current study, we used network analysis to examine the relationships between and among depression and anxiety symptoms from the causal systems perspective. We utilized data from a large psychiatric sample at admission and discharge from a partial hospital program (N = 1029, mean treatment duration = 8 days). We investigated features of the depression/anxiety network including topology, network centrality, stability of the network at admission and discharge as well as change in the network over the course of treatment. Results revealed that individual symptoms of depression and anxiety were more related to other symptoms within each disorder than to symptoms between disorders. Sad mood and worry were among the most central symptoms in the network. The network structure was stable both at admission and between admission and discharge, although the overall strength of symptom relationships increased as symptom severity decreased over the course of treatment. Examining depression and anxiety symptoms as dynamic systems may provide novel insights into the maintenance of these mental health problems.

PurposeThe network perspective on psychopathology understands mental disorders as complex networks of interacting symptoms. Despite its recent debut, with conceptual foundations in 2008 and empirical foundations in 2010, the framework has received considerable attention and recognition in the last years.MethodsThis paper provides a review of all empirical network studies published between 2010 and 2016 and discusses them according to three main themes: comorbidity, prediction, and clinical intervention.ResultsPertaining to comorbidity, the network approach provides a powerful new framework to explain why certain disorders may co-occur more often than others. For prediction, studies have consistently found that symptom networks of people with mental disorders show different characteristics than that of healthy individuals, and preliminary evidence suggests that networks of healthy people show early warning signals before shifting into disordered states. For intervention, centrality—a metric that measures how connected and clinically relevant a symptom is in a network—is the most commonly studied topic, and numerous studies have suggested that targeting the most central symptoms may offer novel therapeutic strategies.ConclusionsWe sketch future directions for the network approach pertaining to both clinical and methodological research, and conclude that network analysis has yielded important insights and may provide an important inroad towards personalized medicine by investigating the network structures of individual patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00127-016-1319-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Most measures of depression severity are based on the number of reported symptoms, and threshold scores are often used to classify individuals as healthy or depressed. This method – and research results based on it – are valid if depression is a single condition, and all symptoms are equally good severity indicators. Here, we review a host of studies documenting that specific depressive symptoms like sad mood, insomnia, concentration problems, and suicidal ideation are distinct phenomena that differ from each other in important dimensions such as underlying biology, impact on impairment, and risk factors. Furthermore, specific life events predict increases in particular depression symptoms, and there is evidence for direct causal links among symptoms. We suggest that the pervasive use of sum-scores to estimate depression severity has obfuscated crucial insights and contributed to the lack of progress in key research areas such as identifying biomarkers and more efficacious antidepressants. The analysis of individual symptoms and their causal associations offers a way forward. We offer specific suggestions with practical implications for future research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0325-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.