4.7 Review

Kinds versus continua: a review of psychometric approaches to uncover the structure of psychiatric constructs

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE
卷 46, 期 8, 页码 1567-1579

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291715001944

关键词

Dynamical systems; latent variable models; network models; psychometrics; taximetrics

资金

  1. ERC Consolidator Grant [647209]
  2. ERC Career Integration Grant [631145]
  3. Veni grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [016.155.083]
  4. Spinoza Prize - Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research
  5. ERC Advanced Grant [5120755-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The question of whether psychopathology constructs are discrete kinds or continuous dimensions represents an important issue in clinical psychology and psychiatry. The present paper reviews psychometric modelling approaches that can be used to investigate this question through the application of statistical models. The relation between constructs and indicator variables in models with categorical and continuous latent variables is discussed, as are techniques specifically designed to address the distinction between latent categories as opposed to continua (taxometrics). In addition, we examine latent variable models that allow latent structures to have both continuous and categorical characteristics, such as factor mixture models and grade-of-membership models. Finally, we discuss recent alternative approaches based on network analysis and dynamical systems theory, which entail that the structure of constructs may be continuous for some individuals but categorical for others. Our evaluation of the psychometric literature shows that the kinds-continua distinction is considerably more subtle than is often presupposed in research; in particular, the hypotheses of kinds and continua are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive. We discuss opportunities to go beyond current research on the issue by using dynamical systems models, intra-individual time series and experimental manipulations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据