Evidence for a General Factor Model of ADHD in Adults

Gibbins, Christopher; Toplak, Maggie E.; Flora, David B.; Weiss, Margaret; Tannock, Rosemary

doi:10.1177/1087054711416310

Cited by 62 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, we were able to replicate the findings of previous studies by showing that a bifactor model provides a better fit to the data from both perspectives than correlated factor models, with a strong general factor and weak specific factors [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. We strongly believe that this implicates that a dimensional diagnostic approach using all items is more adequate compared to the current approaches of the DSM-5 and ICD-10 classification systems where symptoms are added up within the separate dimensions (IN and HY-IM).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

“…Since other studies have reported comparable inconsistencies for the HY items in bifactor models [e.g. [4,5,8,27,28]], we do not consider this finding to be limited to our samples or measurement instruments. The results rather support the criticized improper definition of the HY-IM subtype [11,29] and appear to be more in line with the developments of the DSM-5, which no longer considers (temporally stable) subtypes but rather takes into account temporal representations which may change over time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Those studies have generated consistent proof of the superiority of bifactor models compared to models with correlated factors [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. On top of that, they have found that the general factor explains much more variance than the specific factors, which calls the diagnostic procedure of both diagnostic manuals (DSM and ICD) into question (counting symptoms within the separate dimensions rather than over all items).…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

“…In some studies the specific HY dimension was weakly defined (it mainly consisted of negative or low loadings) [5,8,11]. In others it was the IM dimension [4,10] or even the IN dimension [6,9], and one study even found an ICD model to be most adequate [12]. So far, there is no sound picture or explanation for these differences, which asks for further replications.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Bifactor Models Show a Superior Model Fit: Examination of the Factorial Validity of Parent-Reported and Self-Reported Symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorders in Children and Adolescents

Rodenacker

Hautmann²,

Görtz-Dorten³

et al. 2016

Psychopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Various studies have demonstrated that bifactor models yield better solutions than models with correlated factors. However, the kind of bifactor model that is most appropriate is yet to be examined. The current study is the first to test bifactor models across the full age range (11-18 years) of adolescents using self-reports, and the first to test bifactor models with German subjects and German questionnaires. Sampling and Methods: The study sample included children and adolescents aged between 6 and 18 years recruited from a German clinical sample (n = 1,081) and a German community sample (n = 642). To examine the factorial validity, we compared unidimensional, correlated factors and higher-order and bifactor models and further tested a modified incomplete bifactor model for measurement invariance. Results: Bifactor models displayed superior model fit statistics compared to correlated factor models or second-order models. However, a more parsimonious incomplete bifactor model with only 2 specific factors (inattention and impulsivity) showed a good model fit and a better factor structure than the other bifactor models. Scalar measurement invariance was given in most group comparisons. Conclusion: An incomplete bifactor model would suggest that the specific inattention and impulsivity factors represent entities separable from the general attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder construct and might, therefore, give way to a new approach to subtyping of children beyond and above attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

mentioning

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bifactor Models Show a Superior Model Fit: Examination of the Factorial Validity of Parent-Reported and Self-Reported Symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorders in Children and Adolescents

Rodenacker

Hautmann²,

Görtz-Dorten³

et al. 2016

Psychopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evidence of the superiority of the hierarchical model of ADHD over one-, two-, or three-factor non-hierarchical models has been demonstrated in general population samples of children, samples of children and adolescents with ADHD recruited from the community, and clinic-referred samples, using parent, teacher, adolescent, or clinician reports (e.g., Dumenci et al 2004;Gibbins et al 2011;Martel et al 2010a, b;Toplak et al 2009; A summary of studies on the hierarchical models of ADHD is presented in Suppl. Table 1).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for a General ADHD Factor from a Longitudinal General School Population Study

Normand

Flora

Toplak

et al. 2011

J Abnorm Child Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent factor analytic studies in AttentionDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) have shown that hierarchical models provide a better fit of ADHD symptoms than correlated models. A hierarchical model includes a general ADHD factor and specific factors for inattention, and hyperactivity/impulsivity. The aim of this 12-month longitudinal study was to test the generalizability of the hierarchical models of ADHD within an elementary school population of 6-9 year old children (250 boys, 260 girls). Examination of differences as a function of informant (parent vs. teacher ratings), sex, and time was conducted. Six potential factor structures for the 18 items of the SWAN (Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD-symptoms and Normal-behavior) scale were tested using confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses. Hierarchical models with a general ADHD factor and two or three specific factors best accounted for parent and teacher reports of symptoms for both boys and girls and at two time points separated by a 12-month interval. Findings indicate that the 18 SWAN items measure a common latent trait as well as orthogonal factors or dimensions of inattention and hyperactivity/ impulsivity.

show abstract

Practical consequences of model misfit when using rating scales to assess the severity of attention problems in children

Crișan

Tendeiro

Wanders

et al. 2019

Int J Methods Psych Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives In this study, we examined the consequences of ignoring violations of assumptions underlying the use of sum scores in assessing attention problems (AP) and if psychometrically more refined models improve predictions of relevant outcomes in adulthood. Methods Tracking Adolescents' Individual Lives data were used. AP symptom properties were examined using the AP scale of the Child Behavior Checklist at age 11. Consequences of model violations were evaluated in relation to psychopathology, educational attainment, financial status, and ability to form relationships in adulthood. Results Results showed that symptoms differed with respect to information and difficulty. Moreover, evidence of multidimensionality was found, with two groups of items measuring sluggish cognitive tempo and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms. Item response theory analyses indicated that a bifactor model fitted these data better than other competing models. In terms of accuracy of predicting functional outcomes, sum scores were robust against violations of assumptions in some situations. Nevertheless, AP scores derived from the bifactor model showed some superiority over sum scores. Conclusion These findings show that more accurate predictions of later‐life difficulties can be made if one uses a more suitable psychometric model to assess AP severity in children. This has important implications for research and clinical practice.

show abstract

Evidence for a General Factor Model of ADHD in Adults

Abstract: These results suggest a unitary component to ADHD symptoms as well as dimensional specific factors. The replication of a general factor in adults suggests continuity of symptom presentation from childhood into adulthood. Clinical implications are discussed.

Cited by 62 publications

References 42 publications

Bifactor Models Show a Superior Model Fit: Examination of the Factorial Validity of Parent-Reported and Self-Reported Symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorders in Children and Adolescents

Bifactor Models Show a Superior Model Fit: Examination of the Factorial Validity of Parent-Reported and Self-Reported Symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorders in Children and Adolescents

Evidence for a General ADHD Factor from a Longitudinal General School Population Study

Practical consequences of model misfit when using rating scales to assess the severity of attention problems in children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About