Disentangling adversity timing and type: Contrasting theories in the context of maternal prenatal physical and mental health using latent formative models.

Research on the effects of adversity has led to mounting interest in examining the differential impact of adversity as a function of its timing and type. The current study examines whether the effects of different types (i.e., physical, sexual, and emotional abuse) and timing (i.e., early, middle childhood, adolescence, or adulthood) of adversity on maternal mental and physical health outcomes in pregnancy, are best accounted for by a cumulative model or independent effects model. Women from a prospective pregnancy cohort (N =3,362) reported retrospectively on their experiences of adversity (i.e., physical, sexual, and emotional abuse) in early childhood (0-5 years], middle childhood (6-12 years], adolescence (13-18 years], and adulthood (19+ years]. Measures of overall health, stress, anxiety, and depression were gathered in pregnancy. Results showed that a cumulative formative latent model was selected as more parsimonious than a direct effects model. Results also supported a model where the strength of the effect of adversity did not vary across abuse timing or type. Thus, cumulative adversity resulted in greater physical and mental health difficulties. In conclusion, cumulative adversity is a more parsimonious predictor of maternal physical and mental health outcomes than adversity at any one specific adversity timing or subtype.

Intelligence IS Cognitive Flexibility: Why Multilevel Models of Within-Individual Processes Are Needed to Realise This.

Despite substantial evidence for the link between an individual's intelligence and successful life outcomes, questions about what defines intelligence have remained the focus of heated dispute. The most common approach to understanding intelligence has been to investigate what performance on tests of intellect is and is not associated with. This psychometric approach, based on correlations and factor analysis is deficient. In this review, we aim to substantiate why classic psychometrics which focus on between-person accounts will necessarily provide a limited account of intelligence until theoretical considerations of within-person accounts are incorporated. First, we consider the impact of entrenched psychometric presumptions that support the status quo and impede alternative views. Second, we review the importance of process-theories, which are critical for any serious attempt to build a within-person account of intelligence. Third, features of dynamic tasks are reviewed, and we outline how static tasks can be modified to target within-person processes. Finally, we explain how multilevel models are conceptually and psychometrically well-suited to building and testing within-individual notions of intelligence, which at its core, we argue is cognitive flexibility. We conclude by describing an application of these ideas in the context of microworlds as a case study.

Adverse life events in the general population - a validation of the cumulative lifetime adversity measure.

Background: Negative life events are a predictor for mental illness. However, most research has focused on selected domains, e.g. childhood or recent adversity. The Cumulative Lifetime Adversity Measure (CLAM), a newly introduced questionnaire not yet validated, examines cumulative effect of a range of events including number of exposure to the same event. This measure gives opportunity to collect detailed data on lifetime adversity in large cohort studies. Objective: The aim of this study was translation of the CLAM into Danish and validation of the CLAM in a large general population cohort. Secondly, we aimed to describe the occurrence of adverse life events in a large representative sample of the general population in Denmark. Methods: Translation and validation followed the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) for formative models. Content and construct validity were evaluated including hypothesis testing of accumulated lifetime adversity having a U-shaped pattern with low levels of cumulated lifetime adversity as opposed to no or high levels being associated with lower emotional distress, functional impairment, and pain impairment. The field testing sample was the DanFunD cohort (n = 7493) randomly drawn in a Danish population and examined between 2012 and 2015. Results: Pilot interviews showed that the questions were confronting but not offensive, straight forward, and easy to answer. Acceptability was good. U-shaped patterns between accumulated lifetime adversity and the outcome measures were found. Quadratic term: Emotional distress (ß(95%CI) 0.007(0.002;0.012), p < 0.007), functional impairment (ß(95%CI) -0.002(-0.003;-0.001), p < 0.001), and pain impairment (ß(95%CI) 0.004(0.002;0.006), p = 0.001). Field testing provided basic numbers for adverse life events for the Danish general population, with a cumulated lifetime adversity mean (SD), 5.9 (3.7). Compared to the US there were lower rates of violence, social/environmental stress, and disaster. Conclusions: The results from the original version were replicated, indicating high construct validity. Furthermore, content validity was good.

Antecedentes: Los eventos vitales negativos son un predictor de trastorno mental. Sin embargo, la mayoría de las investigaciones se han centrado en dominios seleccionados, por ej. infancia o adversidad reciente. La Medida de Adversidad Acumulada a lo Largo de la Vida (CLAM en su sigla en inglés), un cuestionario recientemente introducido que no ha sido validado todavía, examina el efecto acumulado de un rango de eventos, incluyendo el número de exposiciones al mismo evento. Esta medida permite recolectar información detallada sobre la adversidad a lo largo de la vida en estudios de cohorte grandes.Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio fue la traducción de la CLAM al idioma danés y la validación de la CLAM en una cohorte grande de población general. En segundo lugar, buscamos describir la ocurrencia de los eventos vitales adversos en una muestra representativa grande de la población general en Dinamarca.Métodos: La traducción y la validación siguió los Estándares basados en Consensos para la selección de los Instrumentos de Medición en Salud (COSMIN en su sigla en inglés) para modelos formativos. La validez de contenido y constructo fueron evaluadas incluyendo la puesta a prueba de la hipótesis de que la adversidad acumulada a lo largo de la vida tiene un patrón de forma en U con bajos niveles de adversidad acumulada a lo largo de la vida, en lugar de niveles nulos o altos, está asociado con más baja angustia emocional, discapacidad funcional, y deterioro del dolour. La muestra de prueba de campo fue una cohorte de DanFunD (n=7493) obtenida aleatoriamente de una población danesa y examinada entre el 2012-2015.Resultados: Las entrevistas piloto mostraron que las preguntas fueron confrontativas pero no ofensivas, directas, y fáciles de contestar. La aceptabilidad fue buena. Se encontraron patrones en forma de U entre la adversidad acumulada a lo largo de la vida y las medidas de los resultados. En términos cuadráticos: Angustia emocional (ß(IC 95%) 0,007(0,002;0,012), p<0.007), discapacidad funcional (ß(IC 95%) −0,002(−0,003;-0,001), p<0.001), y deterioro del dolour (ß(IC 95%) 0,004(0,002;0,006), p=0.001). La prueba de campo proporcionó los números básicos para los eventos vitales adversos para la población general danesa, con una adversidad acumulada a lo largo de la vida promedio (DE), 5.9 (3.7). En comparación con los Estados Unidos, se reportan tasas más bajas de violencia, estrés social/ambiental, y desastre.Conclusiones: Los resultados de la versión original fueron replicados, indicando una validez de constructo alta. Además, la validez de contenido fue buena.

Measuring the Unmeasurable : The Psychometrics of Life History Strategy.

Within evolutionary biology, life-history theory is used to explain cross-species differences in allocation strategies regarding reproduction, maturation, and survival. Behavioral scientists have recently begun to conceptualize such strategies as a within-species individual characteristic that is predictive of behavior. Although life history theory provides an important framework for behavioral scientists, the psychometric approach to life-history strategy measurement-as operationalized by K-factors-involves conceptual entanglements. We argue that current psychometric approaches attempting to identify K-factors are based on an unwarranted conflation of functional descriptions and proximate mechanisms-a conceptual mix-up that may generate unviable hypotheses and invites misinterpretation of empirical findings. The assumptions underlying generic psychometric methodology do not allow measurement of functionally defined variables; rather these methods are confined to Mayr's proximate causal realm. We therefore conclude that K-factor scales lack validity, and that life history strategy cannot be identified with psychometrics as usual. To align theory with methodology, suggestions for alternative methods and new avenues are proposed.

The Data Generation Mechanism: Relationship Between Constructs and Their Indicators / O Mecanismo de Geração de Dados: Relação entre Construtos e seus Indicadores

Abstract The choice of statistical data analysis should be guided by a critical analysis that supports the theoretical relationship between the construct and its indicators. This theoretical article reviews the three main existing psychometric paradigms and their proposals for explaining the relationship between indicators and their constructs. The discussion begins with the standard paradigm that guides the construction and analysis of data in psychology, reflective model. Then, a description of the formative models is performed and finally the Network Analysis as an alternative. The definitions, consequences, and limitations of the use of each measurement model are presented such as a reflection on making decisions about which data generation mechanisms are more appropriate.

Resumo A escolha da análise estatística de dados deveria ser guiada por uma análise crítica que fundamenta a relação teórica entre construto e seus indicadores. Este teórico artigo faz uma revisão dos três principais paradigmas psicométricos e suas propostas de explicação da relação entre os indicadores e seus construtos. A discussão é iniciada com o paradigma padrão que guia a construção e análise de dados na psicologia, os modelos reflexivos. Em seguida, é realizada uma descrição dos modelos formativos e, por fim, a proposta da Análise de Redes como alternativa. São apresentadas as definições, consequências e limitações do uso de cada modelo de medida, bem como uma reflexão na tomada de decisão sobre quais mecanismos de geração de dados são mais apropriados.

The conceptualization and measurement of cognitive reserve using common proxy indicators: Testing some tenable reflective and formative models.

INTRODUCTION: The examination of cognitive reserve (CR) literature reveals a lack of consensus regarding conceptualization and pervasive problems with its measurement. This study aimed at examining the conceptual nature of CR through the analysis of reflective and formative models using eight proxies commonly employed in the CR literature. We hypothesized that all CR proxies would significantly contribute to a one-factor reflective model and that educational and occupational attainment would produce the strongest loadings on a single CR factor. METHOD: The sample consisted of 149 participants (82 male/67 female), with 18.1 average years of education and ages of 45-99 years. Participants were assessed for eight proxies of CR (parent socioeconomic status, intellectual functioning, level of education, health literacy, occupational prestige, life leisure activities, physical activities, and spiritual and religious activities). Primary statistical analyses consisted of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test reflective models and structural equation modeling (SEM) to evaluate multiple indicators multiple causes (MIMIC) models. RESULTS: CFA did not produce compelling support for a unitary CR construct when using all eight of our CR proxy variables in a reflective model but fairly cogent evidence for a one-factor model with four variable proxies. A second three-factor reflective model based upon an exploratory principal components analysis of the eight proxies was tested using CFA. Though all eight indicators significantly loaded on their assigned factors, evidence in support of overall model fit was mixed. Based upon the results involving the three-factor reflective model, two alternative formative models were developed and evaluated. While some support was obtained for both, the model in which the formative influences were specified as latent variables appeared to best account for the contributions of all eight proxies to the CR construct. CONCLUSION: While the findings provide partial support for our hypothesis regarding CR as a one-dimensional reflective construct, the results strongly suggest that the construct is more complex than what can be captured in a reflective model alone. There is a need for theory to better identify and differentiate formative from reflective indicators and to articulate the mechanisms by which CR develops and operates.