Appropriate Use of Bifactor Analysis in Psychopathology Research: Appreciating Benefits and Limitations


      Co-occurrence of psychiatric disorders is well documented. Recent quantitative efforts have moved toward an understanding of this phenomenon, with the general psychopathology or p-factor model emerging as the most prominent characterization. Over the past decade, bifactor model analysis has become increasingly popular as a statistical approach to describe common/shared and unique elements in psychopathology. However, recent work has highlighted potential problems with common approaches to evaluating and interpreting bifactor models. Here, we argue that bifactor models, when properly applied and interpreted, can be useful for answering some important questions in psychology and psychiatry research. We review problems with evaluating bifactor models based on global model fit statistics. We then describe more valid approaches to evaluating bifactor models and highlight 3 types of research questions for which bifactor models are well suited to answer. We also discuss the utility and limits of bifactor applications in genetic and neurobiological research. We close by comparing advantages and disadvantages of bifactor models with other analytic approaches and note that no statistical model is a panacea to rectify limitations of the research design used to gather data.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Biological Psychiatry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Newman D.L.
        • Moffitt T.E.
        • Caspi A.
        • Silva P.A.
        Comorbid mental disorders: Implications for treatment and sample selection.
        J Abnorm Psychol. 1998; 107: 305-311
        • Krueger R.F.
        The structure of common mental disorders.
        Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56: 921-926
        • Krueger R.F.
        • Markon K.E.
        Reinterpreting comorbidity: A model-based approach to understanding and classifying psychopathology.
        Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2006; 2: 111-133
        • Neale M.C.
        • Kendler K.S.
        Models of comorbidity for multifactorial disorders.
        Am J Hum Genet. 1995; 57: 935-953
        • Reise S.P.
        The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models.
        Multivar Behav Res. 2012; 47: 667-696
        • Holzinger K.J.
        • Swineford F.
        The bifactor method.
        Psychometrika. 1937; 2: 41-54
        • Lahey B.B.
        • Rathouz P.J.
        • Keenan K.
        • Stepp S.D.
        • Loeber R.
        • Hipwell A.E.
        Criterion validity of the general factor of psychopathology in a prospective study of girls.
        J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015; 56: 415-422
        • Tackett J.L.
        • Lahey B.B.
        • van Hulle C.
        • Waldman I.
        • Krueger R.F.
        • Rathouz P.J.
        Common genetic influences on negative emotionality and a general psychopathology factor in childhood and adolescence.
        J Abnorm Psychol. 2013; 122: 1142-1153
        • Martel M.M.
        • Pan P.M.
        • Hoffmann M.S.
        • Gadelha A.
        • do Rosário M.C.
        • Mari J.J.
        • et al.
        A general psychopathology factor (P factor) in children: Structural model analysis and external validation through familial risk and child global executive function.
        J Abnorm Psychol. 2017; 126: 137-148
        • Castellanos-Ryan N.
        • Brière F.N.
        • O’Leary-Barrett M.
        • Banaschewski T.
        • Bokde A.
        • Bromberg U.
        • et al.
        The structure of psychopathology in adolescence and its common personality and cognitive correlates.
        J Abnorm Psychol. 2016; 125: 1039-1052
        • Haltigan J.D.
        • Aitken M.
        • Skilling T.
        • Henderson J.
        • Hawke L.
        • Battaglia M.
        • et al.
        “P” and “DP”: Examining symptom-level bifactor models of psychopathology and dysregulation in clinically referred children and adolescents.
        J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2018; 57: 384-396
        • Pettersson E.
        • Lahey B.B.
        • Larsson H.
        • Lichtenstein P.
        Criterion validity and utility of the general factor of psychopathology in childhood: Predictive associations with independently measured severe adverse mental health outcomes in adolescence.
        J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2018; 57: 372-383
        • Forbes M.K.
        • Rapee R.M.
        • Krueger R.F.
        Opportunities for the prevention of mental disorders by reducing general psychopathology in early childhood.
        Behav Res Ther. 2019; 119: 103411
        • Caspi A.
        • Houts R.M.
        • Belsky D.W.
        • Goldman-Mellor S.J.
        • Harrington H.
        • Israel S.
        • et al.
        The p factor: One general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders?.
        Clin Psychol Sci. 2014; 2: 119-137
        • Snyder H.R.
        • Hankin B.L.
        • Sandman C.A.
        • Head K.
        • Davis E.P.
        Distinct patterns of reduced prefrontal and limbic gray matter volume in childhood general and internalizing psychopathology.
        Clin Psychol Sci. 2017; 5: 1001-1013
        • Kim H.
        • Eaton N.R.
        The hierarchical structure of common mental disorders: connecting multiple levels of comorbidity, bifactor models, and predictive validity.
        J Abnorm Psychol. 2015; 124: 1064-1078
        • Lahey B.B.
        • Krueger R.F.
        • Rathouz P.J.
        • Waldman I.D.
        • Zald D.H.
        A hierarchical causal taxonomy of psychopathology across the life span.
        Psychol Bull. 2017; 143: 142-186
        • Lahey B.B.
        • Applegate B.
        • Hakes J.K.
        • Zald D.H.
        • Hariri A.R.
        • Rathouz P.J.
        Is there a general factor of prevalent psychopathology during adulthood?.
        J Abnorm Psychol. 2012; 121: 971-977
        • Yung Y.-F.
        • Thissen D.
        • McLeod L.D.
        On the relationship between the higher-order factor model and the hierarchical factor model.
        Psychometrika. 1999; 64: 113-128
        • Kotov R.
        • Krueger R.F.
        • Watson D.
        • Achenbach T.M.
        • Althoff R.R.
        • Bagby R.M.
        • et al.
        The hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies.
        J Abnorm Psychol. 2017; 126: 454-477
        • Cucina J.
        • Byle K.
        The bifactor model fits better than the higher-order model in more than 90% of comparisons for mental abilities test batteries.
        J Intell. 2017; 5: 27
        • Davies S.E.
        • Connelly B.L.
        • Ones D.S.
        • Birkland A.S.
        The general factor of personality: The “Big One,” a self-evaluative trait, or a methodological gnat that won’t go away?.
        Pers Individ Differ. 2015; 81: 13-22
        • Chang L.
        • Connelly B.S.
        • Geeza A.A.
        Separating method factors and higher order traits of the Big Five: A meta-analytic multitrait–multimethod approach.
        J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012; 102: 408-426
        • Wiernik B.M.
        The nomological network of classic and contemporary career preferences.
        Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 2016
        • Bonifay W.
        • Lane S.P.
        • Reise S.P.
        Three concerns with applying a bifactor model as a structure of psychopathology.
        Clin Psychol Sci. 2017; 5: 184-186
        • Eid M.
        • Geiser C.
        • Koch T.
        • Heene M.
        Anomalous results in G-factor models: Explanations and alternatives.
        Psychol Methods. 2017; 22: 541-562
        • van Bork R.
        • Epskamp S.
        • Rhemtulla M.
        • Borsboom D.
        • van der Maas H.L.J.
        What is the p-factor of psychopathology? Some risks of general factor modeling.
        Theory Psychol. 2017; 27: 759-773
        • Eid M.
        • Krumm S.
        • Koch T.
        • Schulze J.
        Bifactor models for predicting criteria by general and specific factors: Problems of nonidentifiability and alternative solutions.
        J Intell. 2018; 6: 42
        • Bonifay W.
        • Cai L.
        On the complexity of item response theory models.
        Multivar Behav Res. 2017; 52: 465-484
        • Giordano C.
        • Waller N.G.
        Recovering bifactor models: A comparison of seven methods.
        Psychol Methods. 2020; 25: 143-156
        • Lahey B.B.
        • Zald D.H.
        • Perkins S.F.
        • Villalta-Gil V.
        • Werts K.B.
        • Hulle C.A.V.
        • et al.
        Measuring the hierarchical general factor model of psychopathology in young adults.
        Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2018; 27e1593
        • Greene A.L.
        • Eaton N.R.
        The temporal stability of the bifactor model of comorbidity: An examination of moderated continuity pathways.
        Compr Psychiatry. 2017; 72: 74-82
        • Hyland P.
        • Murphy J.
        • Shevlin M.
        • Carey S.
        • Vallières F.
        • Murphy D.
        • Elklit A.
        Correlates of a general psychopathology factor in a clinical sample of childhood sexual abuse survivors.
        J Affect Disord. 2018; 232: 109-115
        • Gignac G.E.
        The higher-order model imposes a proportionality constraint: That is why the bifactor model tends to fit better.
        Intelligence. 2016; 55: 57-68
        • Mansolf M.
        • Reise S.P.
        Exploratory bifactor analysis: The Schmid-Leiman orthogonalization and Jennrich-Bentler analytic rotations.
        Multivar Behav Res. 2016; 51: 698-717
        • Maydeu-Olivares A.
        • Coffman D.L.
        Random intercept item factor analysis.
        Psychol Methods. 2006; 11: 344-362
        • McFarland D.J.
        Modeling general and specific abilities: Evaluation of bifactor models for the WJ-III.
        Assessment. 2016; 23: 698-706
        • Molenaar D.
        On the distortion of model fit in comparing the bifactor model and the higher-order factor model.
        Intelligence. 2016; 57: 60-63
        • Morgan G.
        • Hodge K.
        • Wells K.
        • Watkins M.
        Are fit indices biased in favor of bifactor models in cognitive ability research? A comparison of fit in correlated factors, higher-order, and bifactor models via Monte Carlo simulations.
        J Intell. 2015; 3: 2-20
        • Murray A.L.
        • Johnson W.
        The limitations of model fit in comparing the bi-factor versus higher-order models of human cognitive ability structure.
        Intelligence. 2013; 41: 407-422
        • Reise S.P.
        • Kim D.S.
        • Mansolf M.
        • Widaman K.F.
        Is the bifactor model a better model or is it just better at modeling implausible responses? Application of iteratively reweighted least squares to the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.
        Multivar Behav Res. 2016; 51: 818-838
        • Greene A.L.
        • Eaton N.R.
        • Li K.
        • Forbes M.K.
        • Krueger R.F.
        • Markon K.E.
        • et al.
        Are fit indices used to test psychopathology structure biased? A simulation study.
        J Abnorm Psychol. 2019; 128: 740-764
        • Mansolf M.
        • Reise S.P.
        When and why the second-order and bifactor models are distinguishable.
        Intelligence. 2017; 61: 120-129
        • Watts A.L.
        • Poore H.E.
        • Waldman I.D.
        Riskier tests of the validity of the bifactor model of psychopathology.
        Clin Psychol Sci. 2019; 7: 1285-1303
        • Box G.E.P.
        Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building.
        in: Launer R.L. Wilkinson G.N. Robustness in Statistics. Academic Press, New York1979: 201-236
        • Snyder H.R.
        • Hankin B.L.
        All models are wrong, but the p factor model is useful: Reply to Widiger and Oltmanns (2017) and Bonifay, Lane, and Reise (2017).
        Clin Psychol Sci. 2017; 5: 187-189
        • Hallquist M.N.
        • Wright A.G.C.
        • Molenaar P.C.M.
        Problems with centrality measures in psychopathology symptom networks: Why network psychometrics cannot escape psychometric theory.
        Multivar Behav Res. 2019; ([published online ahead of print Aug 12])
        • Epskamp S.
        • Maris G.
        • Waldorp L.J.
        • Borsboom D.
        Network psychometrics.
        in: Irwing P. Booth T. Hughes D.J. The Wiley Handbook of Psychometric Testing. Wiley, Chichester, UK2018: 953-986
        • Clark L.A.
        • Watson D.
        Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications.
        J Abnorm Psychol. 1991; 100: 316-336
        • Simms L.J.
        • Grös D.F.
        • Watson D.
        • O’Hara M.W.
        Parsing the general and specific components of depression and anxiety with bifactor modeling.
        Depress Anxiety. 2008; 25: E34-E46
        • Revelle W.
        • Wilt J.
        The general factor of personality: A general critique.
        J Res Pers. 2013; 47: 493-504
        • Markon K.E.
        Bifactor and hierarchical models: Specification, inference, and interpretation.
        Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2019; 15: 51-69
        • Chen F.F.
        • West S.G.
        • Sousa K.H.
        A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life.
        Multivar Behav Res. 2006; 41: 189-225
        • Lahey B.B.
        • Van Hulle C.A.
        • Singh A.L.
        • Waldman I.D.
        • Rathouz P.J.
        Higher-order genetic and environmental structure of prevalent forms of child and adolescent psychopathology.
        Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011; 68: 181-189
        • Jahng S.
        • Trull T.J.
        • Wood P.K.
        • Tragesser S.L.
        • Tomko R.
        • Grant J.D.
        • et al.
        Distinguishing general and specific personality disorder features and implications for substance dependence comorbidity.
        J Abnorm Psychol. 2011; 120: 656-669
        • Sharp C.
        • Wright A.G.C.
        • Fowler J.C.
        • Frueh B.C.
        • Allen J.G.
        • Oldham J.
        • Clark L.A.
        The structure of personality pathology: Both general (‘g’) and specific (‘s’) factors?.
        J Abnorm Psychol. 2015; 124: 387-398
        • Wright A.G.C.
        • Hopwood C.J.
        • Skodol A.E.
        • Morey L.C.
        Longitudinal validation of general and specific structural features of personality pathology.
        J Abnorm Psychol. 2016; 125: 1120-1134
        • Patalay P.
        • Fonagy P.
        • Deighton J.
        • Belsky J.
        • Vostanis P.
        • Wolpert M.
        A general psychopathology factor in early adolescence.
        Br J Psychiatry. 2015; 207: 15-22
        • Laceulle O.M.
        • Vollebergh W.A.M.
        • Ormel J.
        The structure of psychopathology in adolescence: Replication of a general psychopathology factor in the TRAILS Study.
        Clin Psychol Sci. 2015; 3: 850-860
        • Borsboom D.
        The structure of the DSM.
        Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002; 59: 569-570
        • Hamilton M.
        A rating scale for depression.
        J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960; 23: 56-62
        • Böhnke J.R.
        • Lutz W.
        • Delgadillo J.
        Negative affectivity as a transdiagnostic factor in patients with common mental disorders.
        J Affect Disord. 2014; 166: 270-278
        • Snyder H.R.
        • Young J.F.
        • Hankin B.L.
        Strong homotypic continuity in common psychopathology-, internalizing-, and externalizing-specific factors over time in adolescents.
        Clin Psychol Sci. 2017; 5: 98-110
        • Stanek K.C.
        • Ones D.S.
        Taxonomies and compendia of cognitive ability and personality measures relevant to industrial, work, and organizational psychology.
        in: 2nd ed. The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology. vol. 1. Sage, London2018: 366-407
        • Constantinou M.
        • Fonagy P.
        Evaluating bifactor models of psychopathology using model-based reliability indices.
        PsyArXiv. 2019; ([published online ahead of print Aug 6])
        • McDonald R.P.
        Test Theory: A Unified Treatment.
        1st ed. Psychology Press, New York2013
        • Zinbarg R.E.
        • Barlow D.H.
        • Brown T.A.
        Hierarchical structure and general factor saturation of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index: Evidence and implications.
        Psychol Assess. 1997; 9: 277-284
        • Rodriguez A.
        • Reise S.P.
        • Haviland M.G.
        Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices.
        Psychol Methods. 2016; 21: 137-150
        • Zinbarg R.E.
        • Yovel I.
        • Revelle W.
        • McDonald R.P.
        Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ωh.
        Appl Psychol Meas. 2006; 30: 121-144
        • Gignac G.E.
        • Watkins M.W.
        Bifactor modeling and the estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS-IV.
        Multivar Behav Res. 2013; 48: 639-662
        • Reiss S.
        • Peterson R.A.
        • Gursky D.M.
        • McNally R.J.
        Anxiety sensitivity, anxiety frequency and the prediction of fearfulness.
        Behav Res Ther. 1986; 24: 1-8
        • Ebesutani C.
        • McLeish A.C.
        • Luberto C.M.
        • Young J.
        • Maack D.J.
        A bifactor model of anxiety sensitivity: Analysis of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3.
        J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2014; 36: 452-464
        • Osman A.
        • Gutierrez P.M.
        • Smith K.
        • Fang Q.
        • Lozano G.
        • Devine A.
        The Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3: Analyses of dimensions, reliability estimates, and correlates in nonclinical samples.
        J Pers Assess. 2010; 92: 45-52
        • Derogatis L.R.
        Symptom Checklist-90–Revised, Brief Symptom Inventory, and BSI-18.
        in: Maruish M.E. Handbook of Psychological Assessment in Primary Care Settings. Routledge, New York2017: 599-630
        • Derogatis L.R.
        • Cleary P.A.
        Confirmation of the dimensional structure of the SCL-90: A study in construct validation.
        J Clin Psychol. 1977; 33: 981-989
        • Lu Y.
        • Alvarez A.N.
        • Miller M.J.
        Measurement invariance of the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18) across Asian American ethnic, nativity, and gender groups.
        Asian Am J Psychol. 2019; 10: 1-10
        • Urbán R.
        • Kun B.
        • Farkas J.
        • Paksi B.
        • Kökönyei G.
        • Unoka Z.
        • et al.
        Bifactor structural model of symptom checklists: SCL-90-R and Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) in a non-clinical community sample.
        Psychiatry Res. 2014; 216: 146-154
        • Bulut O.
        • Davison M.L.
        • Rodriguez M.C.
        Estimating between-person and within-person subscore reliability with profile analysis.
        Multivar Behav Res. 2017; 52: 86-104
        • Wiernik B.M.
        • Wilmot M.P.
        • Kostal J.W.
        How data analysis can dominate interpretations of dominant general factors.
        Ind Organ Psychol. 2015; 8: 438-445
        • McAbee S.T.
        • Oswald F.L.
        • Connelly B.S.
        Bifactor models of personality and college student performance: A broad versus narrow view.
        Eur J Pers. 2014; 28: 604-619
        • Hankin B.L.
        A choose your own adventure story: Conceptualizing depression in children and adolescents from traditional DSM and alternative latent dimensional approaches.
        Behav Res Ther. 2019; 118: 94-100
        • Murray A.L.
        • Eisner M.
        • Ribeaud D.
        The development of the general factor of psychopathology ‘p factor’ through childhood and adolescence.
        J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2016; 44: 1573-1586
        • McElroy E.
        • Belsky J.
        • Carragher N.
        • Fearon P.
        • Patalay P.
        Developmental stability of general and specific factors of psychopathology from early childhood to adolescence: Dynamic mutualism or p-differentiation?.
        J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018; 59: 667-675
        • Meier M.A.
        • Meier M.H.
        Clinical implications of a general psychopathology factor: A cognitive-behavioral transdiagnostic group treatment for community mental health.
        J Psychother Integr. 2018; 28: 253-268
        • Olino T.M.
        • McMakin D.L.
        • Forbes E.E.
        Toward an empirical multidimensional structure of anhedonia, reward sensitivity, and positive emotionality: An exploratory factor analytic study.
        Assessment. 2018; 25: 679-690
        • Tully E.C.
        • Iacono W.
        An integrative common liabilities model for the comorbidity of substance use disorders with externalizing and internalizing disorders.
        in: The Oxford Handbook of Substance Use and Substance Use Disorders. vol. 2. Oxford University Press, New York2014: 187-212
        • Waller N.G.
        Fungible weights in multiple regression.
        Psychometrika. 2008; 73: 691-703
        • Azen R.
        • Budescu D.V.
        The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression.
        Psychol Methods. 2003; 8: 129-148
        • Braun M.T.
        • Converse P.D.
        • Oswald F.L.
        The accuracy of dominance analysis as a metric to assess relative importance: The joint impact of sampling error variance and measurement unreliability.
        J Appl Psychol. 2019; 104: 593-602
        • Borsboom D.
        • Cramer A.O.J.
        Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology.
        Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2013; 9: 91-121
        • Fried E.I.
        • van Borkulo C.D.
        • Cramer A.O.J.
        • Boschloo L.
        • Schoevers R.A.
        • Borsboom D.
        Mental disorders as networks of problems: A review of recent insights.
        Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017; 52: 1-10
        • Borsboom D.
        A network theory of mental disorders.
        World Psychiatry. 2017; 16: 5-13
        • Van Der Maas H.L.J.
        • Dolan C.V.
        • Grasman R.P.P.P.
        • Wicherts J.M.
        • Huizenga H.M.
        • Raijmakers M.E.J.
        A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism.
        Psychol Rev. 2006; 113: 842-861
        • Molenaar P.C.M.
        State space techniques in structural equation modeling: Transformation of latent variables in and out of latent variable models.
        Penn State Social Science Research Institute, University Park, PA2003
        • Fried E.I.
        • von Stockert S.
        • Haslbeck J.M.B.
        • Lamers F.
        • Schoevers R.A.
        • Penninx B.W.J.H.
        Using network analysis to examine links between individual depression symptoms, inflammatory markers, and covariates.
        Psychol Med. 2019; ([published online ahead of print Oct 28])
        • Borsboom D.
        • Cramer A.O.J.
        • Schmittmann V.D.
        • Epskamp S.
        • Waldorp L.J.
        The small world of psychopathology.
        PLoS One. 2011; 6e27407
        • Cramer A.O.J.
        • Kendler K.S.
        • Borsboom D.
        Where are the genes? The implications of a network perspective on gene hunting in psychopathology.
        Eur J Pers. 2011; 25: 270-271
      1. DeYoung CG, Grazioplene RG, Allen TA. The neurobiology of personality. In: John OP, Robbins RW, editors. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 4th ed. In press, New York: Guilford.

        • Deary I.J.
        • Penke L.
        • Johnson W.
        The neuroscience of human intelligence differences.
        Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010; 11: 201-211
        • Cuthbert B.N.
        The RDoC framework: Facilitating transition from ICD/DSM to dimensional approaches that integrate neuroscience and psychopathology.
        World Psychiatry. 2014; 13: 28-35
        • Beauchaine T.P.
        • Zisner A.
        Motivation, emotion regulation, and the latent structure of psychopathology: An integrative and convergent historical perspective.
        Int J Psychophysiol. 2017; 119: 108-118
        • Shanmugan S.
        • Wolf D.H.
        • Calkins M.E.
        • Moore T.M.
        • Ruparel K.
        • Hopson R.D.
        • et al.
        Common and dissociable mechanisms of executive system dysfunction across psychiatric disorders in youth.
        Am J Psychiatry. 2016; 173: 517-526
        • Grotzinger A.D.
        • Rhemtulla M.
        • de Vlaming R.
        • Ritchie S.J.
        • Mallard T.T.
        • Hill W.D.
        • et al.
        Genomic structural equation modelling provides insights into the multivariate genetic architecture of complex traits.
        Nat Hum Behav. 2019; 3: 513-525
        • Jones H.J.
        • Heron J.
        • Hammerton G.
        • Stochl J.
        • Jones P.B.
        • Cannon M.
        • et al.
        Investigating the genetic architecture of general and specific psychopathology in adolescence.
        Transl Psychiatry. 2018; 8: 145
        • Zald D.H.
        • Lahey B.B.
        Implications of the hierarchical structure of psychopathology for psychiatric neuroimaging.
        Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2017; 2: 310-317
        • Marsolek C.J.
        • Burgund E.D.
        Dissociable neural subsystems underlie visual working memory for abstract categories and specific exemplars.
        Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2008; 8: 17-24
        • Poppe A.B.
        • Wisner K.
        • Atluri G.
        • Lim K.O.
        • Kumar V.
        • MacDonald A.W.
        Toward a neurometric foundation for probabilistic independent component analysis of fMRI data.
        Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2013; 13: 641-659
        • Lynch M.
        Estimation of allele frequencies from high-coverage genome-sequencing projects.
        Genetics. 2009; 182: 295-301
        • Belsky D.W.
        • Harden K.P.
        Phenotypic annotation: Using polygenic scores to translate discoveries from genome-wide association studies from the top down.
        Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2019; 28: 82-90
        • Bolt T.
        • Nomi J.S.
        • Yeo B.T.T.
        • Uddin L.Q.
        Data-driven extraction of a nested model of human brain function.
        J Neurosci. 2017; 37: 7263-7277
        • Luningham J.M.
        • Poore H.E.
        • Yang J.
        • Waldman I.D.
        Testing structural models of psychopathology at the genomic level.
        bioRxiv. 2018; (doi: 502039
        • Allegrini A.G.
        • Cheesman R.
        • Rimfeld K.
        • Selzam S.
        • Pingault J.b.
        • Eley T.C.
        • Plomin R.
        The p factor: Genetic analyses support a general dimension of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence.
        J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020; 61: 30-39
        • Selzam S.
        • Coleman J.R.I.
        • Caspi A.
        • Moffitt T.E.
        • Plomin R.
        A polygenic p factor for major psychiatric disorders.
        Transl Psychiatry. 2018; 8: 205
        • Ross D.
        • Spurrett D.
        What to say to a skeptical metaphysician: A defense manual for cognitive and behavioral scientists.
        Behav Brain Sci. 2004; 27: 603-627
        • Gardner C.
        • Kleinman A.
        Medicine and the mind—The consequences of psychiatry’s identity crisis.
        N Engl J Med. 2019; 381: 1697-1699
        • Heinrich M.
        • Zagorscak P.
        • Eid M.
        • Knaevelsrud C.
        Giving G a meaning: An application of the bifactor-(S-1) approach to realize a more symptom-oriented modeling of the Beck Depression Inventory-II.
        Assessment. 2018; ([published online ahead of print Oct 6])
        • Burns G.L.
        • Geiser C.
        • Servera M.
        • Becker S.P.
        • Beauchaine T.P.
        Application of the bifactor S − 1 model to multisource ratings of ADHD/ODD symptoms: An appropriate bifactor model for symptom ratings.
        J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2019; ([published online ahead of print])
        • Eaton N.R.
        • Krueger R.F.
        • Keyes K.M.
        • Wall M.
        • Hasin D.S.
        • Markon K.E.
        • et al.
        The structure and predictive validity of the internalizing disorders.
        J Abnorm Psychol. 2013; 122: 86-92
        • Credé M.
        • Harms P.D.
        25 years of higher-order confirmatory factor analysis in the organizational sciences: A critical review and development of reporting recommendations.
        J Organ Behav. 2015; 36: 845-872

      Linked Article

      • The Indispensable Value of a Coherent Phenotypic Model of Psychopathology
        Biological PsychiatryVol. 88Issue 1
        • Preview
          Psychiatric research is greatly in need of a coherent phenotypic model of psychopathology, by which we mean a model encompassing the manifest signs and symptoms that lead patients to seek psychiatric services. A model of these signs and symptoms is needed because they constitute the problematic thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are the foci of psychiatric practice and research.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF