Taxometric analysis: Introduction and overview

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to taxometric procedures, and a set of mathematical tools utilized to examine the latent structure of constructs as they occur in nature (i.e., categorical versus dimensional).Method: Taxometric procedures have the potential to inform the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) conceptualization of eating disorders, and provide unique information about the construct validity of the current diagnostic scheme. Existing empirical studies which utilize taxometric procedures are reviewed, and the current DSM diagnostic categories are evaluated in terms of how well they square with empirical findings.Conclusion: Finally, the implications of the taxometrics literature for future DSM classification of eating disorders, as well as guidelines for future areas of research, are discussed. V V C 2007 by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A cross‐cultural comparison of the eating disorder inventory

“…So far, taxometric analysis, a set of procedures that assesses the structure of a given disorder by detecting whether a latent taxon exists among its indicators, has provided mixed results: some studies are more indicative of a dimensional solution 125 while others have demonstrated that eating disorders may involve one or more latent taxons. [126][127][128][129] The similarity of factorial structures derived from clinical and nonclinical populations seems to favor a dimensional model: the responses of eating-disordered and normal respondents were possible to project onto the same conceptual space with a strikingly similar configuration.…”

incorporating dimensions into the classification of eating disorders: Three models and their implications for research and clinical practice

“…For example, several studies have examined the underlying structure of ED symptoms using taxometric analysis, a statistical technique designed to evaluate whether constructs are dimensional (i.e., vary in degree) or categorical (i.e., vary in kind) across a population [for review, see Refs. (8, 13)]. In general, this work suggests that the cognitive correlates of disordered eating (e.g., self-reported dietary restraint, body dissatisfaction, drive for thinness) are continuous with normality (i.e., dimensional) (14).…”

Does the evidence point to a binge eating phenotype?: Comment on Gordon et al. (2007) and Wonderlich et al. (2007)

“…These writers are to be commended for taking this complex topic and making it comprehensible to those who are not experts in the field of taxometrics and classification research. Gordon et al 1 conclude that the results of taxometric studies suggest the existence of three diagnostic groups, bulimia nervosa, anorexia nervosa, restricting type, and binge eating disorder. They recommend conceptualizing bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder as categorical classes, but conceptualize anorexia nervosa as a dimensional or continuous entity.…”

“…The article by Gordon et al 1 presents a very understandable description of taxometric analyses. These writers are to be commended for taking this complex topic and making it comprehensible to those who are not experts in the field of taxometrics and classification research.…”

“…Wonderlich et al suggest a comprehensive research strategy for validating eating disorder classification models. Both articles 1,2 observe that eating disorders involving binge eating can be conceptualized as qualitatively distinct types or classes and they conclude that psychopathological and personality features other than frank eating disorder symptoms, e.g., concern with body size/shape, binge eating, purging, and restrictive eating, are important aspects of eating disorder diagnoses.…”