The unity and diversity of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity in ADHD: evidence for a general factor with separable dimensions

Revisiting the latent structure of ADHD: is there a 'g' factor?

BACKGROUND

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is presumed to be heterogeneous, but the best way to describe this heterogeneity remains unclear. Considerable evidence has accrued suggesting that inattention versus hyperactivity-impulsivity symptom domains predict distinct clinical outcomes and may have partially distinct etiological influence. As a result, some conceptualizations emphasize two distinct inputs to the syndrome. Yet formal testing of models that would accommodate such assumptions using modern methods (e.g., second-order factor and bifactor models) has been largely lacking.

METHODS

Participants were 548 children (321 boys) between the ages of 6 and 18 years. Of these 548 children, 302 children met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD, 199 were typically developing controls without ADHD, and 47 were classified as having situational or subthreshold ADHD. ADHD symptoms were assessed via parent report on a diagnostic interview and via parent and teacher report on the ADHD Rating Scale.

RESULTS

A bifactor model with a general factor and specific factors of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity fit best when compared with one-, two-, and three-factor models, and a second-order factor model.

CONCLUSIONS

A bifactor model of ADHD latent symptom structure is superior to existing factor models of ADHD. This finding is interpreted in relation to multi-component models of ADHD development, and clinical implications are discussed.

Dimensional and hierarchical models of depression using the Beck Depression Inventory-II in an Arab college student sample

BACKGROUND

An understanding of depressive symptomatology from the perspective of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) could facilitate valid and interpretable comparisons across cultures. The objectives of the study were: (i) using the responses of a sample of Arab college students to the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) in CFA, to compare the "goodness of fit" indices of the original dimensional three-and two-factor first-order models, and their modifications, with the corresponding hierarchical models (i.e., higher - order and bifactor models); (ii) to assess the psychometric characteristics of the BDI-II, including convergent/discriminant validity with the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-25).

METHOD

Participants (N = 624) were Kuwaiti national college students, who completed the questionnaires in class. CFA was done by AMOS, version 16. Eleven models were compared using eight "fit" indices.

RESULTS

In CFA, all the models met most "fit" criteria. While the higher-order model did not provide improved fit over the dimensional first - order factor models, the bifactor model (BFM) had the best fit indices (CMNI/DF = 1.73; GFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.034). All regression weights of the dimensional models were significantly different from zero (P < 0.001). Standardized regression weights were mostly 0.27-0.60, and all covariance paths were significantly different from zero. The regression weights of the BFM showed that the variance related to the specific factors was mostly accounted for by the general depression factor, indicating that the general depression score is an adequate representation of severity. The BDI-II had adequate internal consistency and convergent/discriminant validity. The mean BDI score (15.5, SD = 8.5) was significantly higher than those of students from other countries (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The broadly adequate fit of the various models indicates that they have some merit and implies that the relationship between the domains of depression probably contains hierarchical and dimensional elements. The bifactor model is emerging as the best way to account for the clinical heterogeneity of depression. The psychometric characteristics of the BDI-II lend support to our CFA results.