TY - JOUR
T1 - Revisiting the latent structure of ADHD
T2 - Is there a 'g' factor?
AU - Martel, Michelle M.
AU - Von Eye, Alexander
AU - Nigg, Joel T.
PY - 2010/8
Y1 - 2010/8
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - ADHD
KW - development
KW - structural equation modeling
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/77954499606
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/77954499606#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02232.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02232.x
M3 - Article
C2 - 20331490
AN - SCOPUS:77954499606
SN - 0021-9630
VL - 51
SP - 905
EP - 914
JO - Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines
JF - Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines
IS - 8
ER -