European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026
Psychometric validation of research domain criteria, general health, and clinical-psychosocial parts of the minimum dataset of the German Center for Mental Health-informing a Delphi process.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Förstner Bernd R, Böttger Sarah Jane, Seegert Timm, Kerber André, Terhorst Yannik, Heinz Andreas, Dziobek Isabel, Voigt Babett, Schneider Silvia, Opel Nils, Walter Martin, Braun Urs, Meyer-Lindenberg Andreas, Koutsouleris Nikolaos, Falkai Peter, Schmitz Norbert, Fallgatter Andreas J, Sünkel Ulrike, Lipinski Silke, Rapp Michael A, Tschorn Mira, MDS Expert Group List
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the latent structure and conceptual validity of the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), General Health, and Clinical/Psychosocial clusters of the German Center for Mental Health (DZPG) Minimum Data Set (MDS). It aimed to determine whether these clusters represent interpretable constructs and demonstrate cross-group comparability across clinical and non-clinical populations, providing a data-driven basis for item selection within a Delphi consensus process.
METHODS: Two subsamples were analyzed: a representative sample (N = 2,287) and a clinic-recruited sample (N = 322) from six DZPG sites. Multi-group confirmatory factor analyses tested the latent structure and assessed configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance between non-clinical vs. clinical/help-seeking groups.
RESULTS: All three MDS clusters demonstrated excellent baseline model fit (RDoC: CFI = .990, RMSEA = .037; General Health: CFI = .993, RMSEA = .037; Clinical/Psychosocial factors: CFI = .992, RMSEA = .026). Analyses confirmed configural and scalar invariance across all clusters but indicated non-invariance at the metric level for the General Health cluster.
CONCLUSIONS: The results provide initial evidence for the structural validity and cross-group comparability of the RDoC and Clinical/Psychosocial clusters, while indicating limitations regarding metric non-invariance within the General Health cluster. They informed a Delphi consensus process and support the MDS as a scalable framework for diverse populations, particularly relevant for the DZPG's effort to harmonize mental health data across institutions and contexts.
METHODS: Two subsamples were analyzed: a representative sample (N = 2,287) and a clinic-recruited sample (N = 322) from six DZPG sites. Multi-group confirmatory factor analyses tested the latent structure and assessed configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance between non-clinical vs. clinical/help-seeking groups.
RESULTS: All three MDS clusters demonstrated excellent baseline model fit (RDoC: CFI = .990, RMSEA = .037; General Health: CFI = .993, RMSEA = .037; Clinical/Psychosocial factors: CFI = .992, RMSEA = .026). Analyses confirmed configural and scalar invariance across all clusters but indicated non-invariance at the metric level for the General Health cluster.
CONCLUSIONS: The results provide initial evidence for the structural validity and cross-group comparability of the RDoC and Clinical/Psychosocial clusters, while indicating limitations regarding metric non-invariance within the General Health cluster. They informed a Delphi consensus process and support the MDS as a scalable framework for diverse populations, particularly relevant for the DZPG's effort to harmonize mental health data across institutions and contexts.