Search

Objective: Although the significance of the general factor of psychopathology ( p) is being increasingly recognized, it remains unclear how to best operationalize and measure p . To test variations in the operationalizations of p and make practical recommendations for its assessment, we compared p -factor scores derived from four models., Methods: We compared p scores derived from principal axis (Model 1), hierarchical factor (Model 2), and bifactor (Model 3) analyses, plus a Total Problem score (sum of unit-weighted ratings of all problem items; Model 4) for parent- and self-rated youth psychopathology from 24 societies. Separately for each sample, we fitted the models to parent-ratings on the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6-18 (CBCL/6-18) and self-ratings on the Youth Self-Report (YSR) for 25,643 11-18-year-olds. Separately for each sample, we computed correlations between p- scores obtained for each pair of models, cross-informant correlations between p -scores for each model, and Q -correlations between mean item x p -score correlations for each pair of models., Results: Results were similar for all models, as indicated by correlations of .973-.994 between p -scores for Models 1-4, plus similar cross-informant correlations between CBCL/6-18 and YSR Model 1-4 p -scores. Item x p correlations had similar rank orders between Models 1-4, as indicated by Q correlations of .957-.993., Conclusions: The similar results obtained for Models 1-4 argue for using the simplest model - the unit-weighted Total Problem score - to measure p for clinical and research assessment of youth psychopathology. Practical methods for measuring p may advance the field toward transdiagnostic patterns of problems.

We used population sample data from 25 societies to answer the following questions: (a) How consistently across societies do adolescents report more problems than their parents report about them? (b) Do levels of parent-adolescent agreement vary among societies for different kinds of problems? (c) How well do parents and adolescents in different societies agree on problem item ratings? (d) How much do parent-adolescent dyads within each society vary in agreement on item ratings? (e) How well do parent-adolescent dyads within each society agree on the adolescent's deviance status? We used five methods to test cross-informant agreement for ratings obtained from 27,861 adolescents ages 11 to 18 and their parents. Youth Self-Report (YSR) mean scores were significantly higher than Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) mean scores for all problem scales in almost all societies, but the magnitude of the YSR-CBCL discrepancy varied across societies. Cross-informant correlations for problem scale scores varied more across societies than across types of problems. Across societies, parents and adolescents tended to rate the same items as low, medium, or high, but within-dyad parent-adolescent item agreement varied widely in every society. In all societies, both parental noncorroboration of self-reported deviance and adolescent noncorroboration of parent-reported deviance were common. Results indicated many multicultural consistencies but also some important differences in parent-adolescent cross-informant agreement. Our findings provide valuable normative baselines against which to compare multicultural findings for clinical samples.

There is a growing need for multicultural collaboration in child mental health services, training, and research. To facilitate such collaboration, this study tested the 8-syndrome structure of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) in 30 societies. Parents' CBCL ratings of 58,051 6- to 18-year-olds were subjected to confirmatory factor analyses, which were conducted separately for each society. Societies represented Asia; Africa; Australia; the Caribbean; Eastern, Western, Southern, and Northern Europe; the Middle East; and North America. Fit indices strongly supported the correlated 8-syndrome structure in each of 30 societies. The results support use of the syndromes in diverse societies.