P-Factor(s) for Youth Psychopathology Across Informants and Models in 24 Societies.

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.

Effects of individual differences, society, and culture on youth-rated problems and strengths in 38 societies.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians increasingly serve youths from societal/cultural backgrounds different from their own. This raises questions about how to interpret what such youths report. Rescorla et al. (2019, European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 1107) found that much more variance in 72,493 parents' ratings of their offspring's mental health problems was accounted for by individual differences than by societal or cultural differences. Although parents' reports are essential for clinical assessment of their offspring, they reflect parents' perceptions of the offspring. Consequently, clinical assessment also requires self-reports from the offspring themselves. To test effects of individual differences, society, and culture on youths' self-ratings of their problems and strengths, we analyzed Youth Self-Report (YSR) scores for 39,849 11-17 year olds in 38 societies. METHODS: Indigenous researchers obtained YSR self-ratings from population samples of youths in 38 societies representing 10 culture cluster identified in the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavioral Effectiveness study. Hierarchical linear modeling of scores on 17 problem scales and one strengths scale estimated the percent of variance accounted for by individual differences (including measurement error), society, and culture cluster. ANOVAs tested age and gender effects. RESULTS: Averaged across the 17 problem scales, individual differences accounted for 92.5% of variance, societal differences 6.0%, and cultural differences 1.5%. For strengths, individual differences accounted for 83.4% of variance, societal differences 10.1%, and cultural differences 6.5%. Age and gender had very small effects. CONCLUSIONS: Like parents' ratings, youths' self-ratings of problems were affected much more by individual differences than societal/cultural differences. Most variance in self-rated strengths also reflected individual differences, but societal/cultural effects were larger than for problems, suggesting greater influence of social desirability. The clinical significance of individual differences in youths' self-reports should thus not be minimized by societal/cultural differences, which-while important-can be taken into account with appropriate norms, as can gender and age differences.

Testing Syndromes of Psychopathology in Parent and Youth Ratings Across Societies.

As societies become increasingly diverse, mental health professionals need instruments for assessing emotional, behavioral, and social problems in terms of constructs that are supported within and across societies. Building on decades of research findings, multisample alignment confirmatory factor analyses tested an empirically based 8-syndrome model on parent ratings across 30 societies and youth self-ratings across 19 societies. The Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6-18 and Youth Self-Report for Ages 11-18 were used to measure syndromes descriptively designated as Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Social Problems, Thought Problems, Attention Problems, Rule-Breaking Behavior, and Aggressive Behavior. For both parent ratings (N = 61,703) and self-ratings (N = 29,486), results supported aggregation of problem items into 8 first-order syndromes for all societies (configural invariance), plus the invariance of item loadings (metric invariance) across the majority of societies. Supported across many societies in both parent and self-ratings, the 8 syndromes offer a parsimonious phenotypic taxonomy with clearly operationalized assessment criteria. Mental health professionals in many societies can use the 8 syndromes to assess children and youths for clinical, training, and scientific purposes.

Cross-informant agreement between parent-reported and adolescent self-reported problems in 25 societies.

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.

International epidemiology of child and adolescent psychopathology ii: integration and applications of dimensional findings from 44 societies.

OBJECTIVE: To build on Achenbach, Rescorla, and Ivanova (2012) by (a) reporting new international findings for parent, teacher, and self-ratings on the Child Behavior Checklist, Youth Self-Report, and Teacher's Report Form; (b) testing the fit of syndrome models to new data from 17 societies, including previously underrepresented regions; (c) testing effects of society, gender, and age in 44 societies by integrating new and previous data; (d) testing cross-society correlations between mean item ratings; (e) describing the construction of multisociety norms; (f) illustrating clinical applications. METHOD: Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) of parent, teacher, and self-ratings, performed separately for each society; tests of societal, gender, and age effects on dimensional syndrome scales, DSM-oriented scales, Internalizing, Externalizing, and Total Problems scales; tests of agreement between low, medium, and high ratings of problem items across societies. RESULTS: CFAs supported the tested syndrome models in all societies according to the primary fit index (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA]), but less consistently according to other indices; effect sizes were small-to-medium for societal differences in scale scores, but very small for gender, age, and interactions with society; items received similarly low, medium, or high ratings in different societies; problem scores from 44 societies fit three sets of multisociety norms. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically derived syndrome models fit parent, teacher, and self-ratings when tested individually in all 44 societies according to RMSEAs (but less consistently according to other indices). Small to medium differences in scale scores among societies supported the use of low-, medium-, and high-scoring norms in clinical assessment of individual children.