Child and adolescent mental health · 2017
Dimensionality of oppositional defiant disorder.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hukkelberg Silje S, Ogden Terje
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The present study examined dimensionality of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) using 10 alternative items using network analysis and confirmatory factor analysis.
METHODS: The sample constituted 551 Norwegian children aged 2-12 and their parents. We used network analysis to investigate the connections between different symptoms. Next, we analysed data using traditional confirmatory factor methods, including the more recently proposed bifactor approach.
RESULTS: The bifactor model, with a strong general factor and three specific factors, provided the best model fit. Omega values did, however, reveal that only the general and the specific hurtful factor had satisfactory reliability. Network analysis showed that symptoms in general were positively connected within the ODD network. Strong connections between several symptoms within the irritable and hurtful cluster emerged, whereas some symptoms of the headstrong cluster seem to function as bridge nodes between the irritable and hurtful symptom clusters.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings support a bifactor model of ODD indicators, but omegas only gave support to the use of a general latent factor, and one specific factor. Network analysis did, however, provide some additional and interesting findings, revealing clusters of strongly connected symptoms and central bridge node symptoms. Implications of the results are discussed.
METHODS: The sample constituted 551 Norwegian children aged 2-12 and their parents. We used network analysis to investigate the connections between different symptoms. Next, we analysed data using traditional confirmatory factor methods, including the more recently proposed bifactor approach.
RESULTS: The bifactor model, with a strong general factor and three specific factors, provided the best model fit. Omega values did, however, reveal that only the general and the specific hurtful factor had satisfactory reliability. Network analysis showed that symptoms in general were positively connected within the ODD network. Strong connections between several symptoms within the irritable and hurtful cluster emerged, whereas some symptoms of the headstrong cluster seem to function as bridge nodes between the irritable and hurtful symptom clusters.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings support a bifactor model of ODD indicators, but omegas only gave support to the use of a general latent factor, and one specific factor. Network analysis did, however, provide some additional and interesting findings, revealing clusters of strongly connected symptoms and central bridge node symptoms. Implications of the results are discussed.