Using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) to examine the internal structure of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms

  1. Andrés Fresno 1
  2. Víctor Arias 2
  3. Daniel Núñez 1
  4. Rosario Spencer 1
  5. Nadia Ramos 1
  6. Camila Espinoza 1
  7. Patricia Bravo 1
  8. Jessica Arriagada 1
  9. Alain Brunet 3
  1. 1 Universidad de Talca
    info

    Universidad de Talca

    Talca, Chile

    ROR https://ror.org/01s4gpq44

  2. 2 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

  3. 3 McGill University
    info

    McGill University

    Montreal, Canadá

    ROR https://ror.org/01pxwe438

Mostrar afiliaciones +
Revista:
The Spanish Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 1138-7416

Año de publicación: 2020

Número: 23

Páginas: 1-12

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1017/SJP.2020.46 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Resumen

Several studies have reported the factor structure of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results show models with different number of factors, high correlations between factors, and symptoms that belong to different factors in different models without affecting the fit index. These elements could suppose the existence of considerable item cross-loading, the overlap of different factors or even the presence of a general factor that explains the items common source of variance. The aim is to provide new evidence regarding the factor structure of PTSD using CFA and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). In a sample of 1,372 undergraduate students, we tested six different models using CFA and two models using ESEM and ESEM bifactor analysis. Trauma event and past-month PTSD symptoms were assessed with Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 (LEC–5) and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL–5). All six tested CFA models showed good fit indexes (RMSEA = .051–.056, CFI = .969–.977, TLI = .965–.970), with high correlations between factors (M = .77, SD = .09 to M = .80, SD = .09). The ESEM models showed good fit indexes (RMSEA = .027–.036, CFI = .991–.996, TLI = .985–.992). These models confirmed the presence of cross-loadings on several items as well as loads on a general factor that explained 76.3% of the common variance. The results showed that most of the items do not meet the assumption of dimensional exclusivity, showing the need to expand the analysis strategies to study the symptomatic organization of PTSD.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Arias, V. B., Ponce, F. P., Martínez-Molina, A., Arias, B., & Núñez, D. (2016). General and specific attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder factors of children 4 to 6 years of age: An exploratory structural equation modeling approach to assessing symptom multidimensionality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(1), 125–137. http://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000115
  • Armour, C., Fried, E. I., Deserno, M. K., Tsai, J., & Pietrzak, R. H. (2017). A network analysis of DSM–5 Posttraumatic Stress Disorder symptoms and correlates in U.S. military veterans. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 45, 49–59. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.11.008
  • Armour, C., Tsai, J., Durham, T. A., Charak, R., Biehn, T. L., Elhai, J. D., & Pietrzak, R. H. (2015). Dimensional structure of DSM–5 posttraumatic stress symptoms: Support for hybrid Anhedonia and Externalizing Behaviors model. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 61, 106–113. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.10.012
  • Ashbaugh, A. R., Houle-Johnson, S., Herbert, C., El-Hage, W., Brunet, A. (2016). Psychometric validation of the English and French versions of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM–5 (PCL–5). PLOS ONE, 11(10), Article e0161645. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161645
  • Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204
  • Atkas, A., Walsh, D., & Rybicki, L. (2010). Symptom clusters: Myth or reality. Palliative Medicine, 24(4), 373–385. http://doi.org/10.1177/0269216310367842
  • Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(2), 186–203, http://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2
  • Blake, D. D., Weathers, F. W., Nagy, L. M., Kaloupek, D. G., Gusman, F. D., Charney, D. S., & Keane, T. M. (1995). The development of the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8, 75–90. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02105408
  • Blevins, C. A., Weathers, F. W., Davis, M. T., Witte, T. K., & Domino, J. L. (2015). The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM–5 (PCL–5): Development and initial psychometric evaluation. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28, 489–498. http://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22059
  • Bovin, M. J., Marx, B. P., Weathers, F. W., Gallagher, M. W., Rodriguez, P., Schnurr, P. P., & Keane, T. M. (2016). Psychometric properties of the PTSD checklist for diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders‐fifth edition (PCL‐5) in veterans. Psychological Assessment, 28(11), 1379–1391. http://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000254
  • Boysan, M., Ozdemir, P. G., Yilmaz, E., Selvi, Y., Özdemir, O., & Kefeli, M. C. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (Turkish CAPS–5). Psychiatry and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 27(2), 173–184. http://doi.org/10.1080/24750573.2017.1326746
  • Brewin, C. R., Cloitre, M., Hyland, P., Shevlin, M., Maercker, A., Bryant, R. A., Humayung, A., Jones, L. M., Kagee, A., Rousseau, C., Somasundaram, D., Suzuki, Y., Wessely, S., van Ommeren, M., & Reed, G. M. (2017). A review of current evidence regarding the ICD–11 proposals for diagnosing PTSD and complex PTSD. Clinical Psychology Review, 58, 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.09.001
  • Brislin, R.W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3),185–216. http://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
  • Bryant, R. A., Creamer, M., O’Donnell, M., Forbes, D., McFarlane, A. C., Silove, D., & Hadzi-Pavlovic, D. (2016). Acute and chronic posttraumatic stress symptoms in the emergence of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A network analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 74(2), 135–142. http://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.3470
  • Canivez, G. L. (2015). Bifactor modeling in construct validation of multifactored tests: Implications for understanding multidimensional constructs and test interpretation. In Schweizer, K. & DiStefano, C. (Eds.) Principles and methods of test construction: Standards and recent advancements (pp. 247–271). Hogrefe Publishers.
  • Carvalho, T., da Motta, C., & Pinto-Gouveia, J. (2020). Portuguese version of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM–5 (PCL–5): Comparison of latent models and other psychometric analyses. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76(7), 1267-1282. http://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22930
  • Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464–504. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
  • Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
  • Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. http://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
  • Galatzer-Levy, I. R., & Bryant, R. A. (2013). 636,120 Ways to have Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 651–662. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613504115
  • Holzinger, K. J., & Swineford, F. (1937). The Bi-factor method. Psychometrika, 2, 41–54. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287965
  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  • Krüger‐Gottschalk, A., Knaevelsrud, C., Rau, H., Dyer, A., Schäfer, I., Schellong, J., & Ehring, T. (2017). The German version of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM‐5 (PCL‐5): Psychometric properties and diagnostic utility. BMC Psychiatry, Article e379. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12888–017-1541-6
  • Lee, D. J., Bovin, M. J., Weathers, F. W., Palmieri, P. A., Schnurr, P. P., Sloan, D. M., Keane, T. M., & Marx, B. P. (2019). Latent factor structure of DSM‐5 Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Evaluation of method variance and construct validity of novel symptom clusters. Psychological Assessment, 31(1), 46–58. http://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000642
  • Lewis-Fernández, R., Hinton, D. E., & Marques, L. (2014). Culture and PTSD. In Friedman, M. J., Keane, T. M., & Resik, P. A. (Eds.), Handbook of PTSD: Science and practice (2nd Ed., pp. 522–539). Guilford Publications Inc.
  • Liu, P., Wang, L., Cao, C., Wang, R., Zhang, B., Wu, Q., Zhang, H., Zhao, Z., Fan, G., & Elhai, J. D. (2014). The underlying dimensions of DSM–5 Posttraumatic Stress Disorder symptoms in an epidemiological sample of Chinese earthquake survivors. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28, 345–351. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.03.008
  • Makhubela, M. (2018). Latent structure of the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist for DSM–5 (PCL–5) in South African mortuary workers. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 28(3), 206–211. http://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2018.1475909
  • Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A. J. S. (2013). Measurement invariance of Big-Five factors over the life span: ESEM tests of gender, age, plasticity, maturity, and la dolce vita effects. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1194–1218. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0026913
  • Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modelling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test Theory: A unified treatment. Erlbaum.
  • McNally, R. J., Robinaugh, D. J., Wu, G. W. Y., Wang, L. Deserno, M. K., & Borsboon, D. (2014). Mental disorders as causal systems: A network approach to Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Clinical Psychological Science, 3 ( 6), 836-849. http://doi.org/10.1177/2167702614553230
  • Merenda, P. F. (2006). An overview of adapting educational and psychological assessment instruments: Past and present. Psychological Reports, 99(2), 307–314. http://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.99.2.307-314
  • Morin, A. J. S., Arens, A., & Marsh, H. W. (2015). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 116–139. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.961800
  • Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B., (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An introduction. In Hancock, G. R. & Mueller, R. O. (Eds.), Structural Equation Modeling: A second course (2nd Ed, pp. 395–436). Information Age Pubishing, Inc.
  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2014). Mplus user’s guide (7 th Ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
  • Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696. http://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
  • Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17, 354–373. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315
  • Schmitt, T. A., & Sass, D. A. (2011). Rotation criteria and hypothesis testing for exploratory factor analysis: Implications for factor pattern loadings and interfactor correlations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(1), 95–113. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410387348
  • Seligowski, A. V., & Orcutt, H. K. (2016). Support for the 7‐Factor Hybrid Model of PTSD in a community sample. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 8(2), 218–221. http://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000104
  • Soberón, C., Crespo, M., Gómez-Gutiérrez, M. d. M., Fernández-Lansac, V., & Armour, C. (2016). Dimensional structure of DSM–5 posttraumatic stress symptoms in Spanish trauma victims. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 7(1), Article e32078. http://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v7.32078
  • Thorndike, R. L. (1994). “g.” Intelligence, 19, 145–155. http://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(94)90010-8
  • Tsai, J., Harpaz-Rotem, I., Armour, C., Southwick, S. M., Krystal, J. H., & Pietrzak, R. H. (2015). Dimensional Structure of DSM–5 posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms: Results from the national health and resilience in veterans study. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 76(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.14m09091
  • van Praag, D. L. G., Fardzadeh, H. E., Covic, A., Maas, A. I. R., von Steinbüchel, N. (2020). Preliminary validation of the Dutch version of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM–5 (PCL–5) after traumatic brain injury in a civilian population. PLoS ONE, 15(4), Article e0231857. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231857
  • Wang, L., Zhang, L., Armour, C., Cao, C., Qing, Y., Zhang, J., Liu, P., Zhang, B., Wu, Q., Zhao, Z., & Fan, G. (2015). Assessing the underlying dimensionality of DSM–5 PTSD symptoms in Chinese adolescents surviving the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Journal of Anxiety Disorder, 31, 90–97. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.02.006
  • Weathers, F. W., Blake, D. D., Schnurr, P.P., Kaloupek, D.G., Marx, B.P., & Keane, T.M. (2013). The Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 (LEC-5). National Center for PTSD. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/te-measures/life_events_checklist.asp
  • Weathers, F. W., Litz, B. T., Keane, T. M., Palmieri, P. A., Marx, B. P., & Schnurr, P. P. (2013). The PTSD Checklist for DSM–5 (PCL–5). National Center for PTSD. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/adult-sr/ptsd-checklist.asp
  • Wortmann, J. H., Jordan, A. H., Weathers, F. W., Resick, P. A., Dondanville, K. A., Hall‐Clark, B., Foa, E. B., Young-McCaughan, S., Yarvis, J. S., Hembree, E. A., Mintz, J., Peterson, A. L., & Litz, B. T. (2016). Psychometric analysis of the PTSD Checklist‐5 (PCL‐5) among treatment‐seeking military service members. Psychological Assessment, 28(11), 1392–1403. http://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000260
  • Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω H : Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70, 123–133. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7
  • Zinbarg, R. E., Yovel, I., Revelle, W., & McDonald, R. P. (2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ωh. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30(2), 121–144. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146621605278814
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet