IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0235272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The proportion of non-depressed subjects in a study sample strongly affects the results of psychometric analyses of depression symptoms

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Foster
  • Meichun Mohler-Kuo

Abstract

Background: Recent studies have uncovered a peculiar finding: that the strength and dimensionality of depression symptoms’ inter-relationships vary systematically across study samples with different average levels of depression severity. Our aim was to examine whether this phenomenon is driven by the proportion of non-affected subjects in the sample. Methods: Cross-sectional data from the “Cohort Study on Substance Use Risk Factors” was analyzed. Self-reported depression symptoms were assessed via the Major Depressive Inventory. Symptom data were analyzed via polychoric correlations, principal component analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, Mokken scale analysis, and network analysis. Analyses were carried out across 22 subsamples containing increasingly higher proportions of non-depressed participants. Results were examined as a function of the proportion of non-depressed participants. Results: A strong influence of the proportion of non-depressed participants was uncovered: the higher the proportion, the stronger the symptom correlations, higher their tendency towards unidimensionality, better their scalability, and higher the network edge strengths. Comparing the depressed sample with the general population sample, the average symptom correlation increased from 0.29 to 0.51; variance explained by the first eigenvalue increased from 0.36 to 0.56; fit measures from confirmatory one-factor analysis increased from 0.81 to 0.97; the H coefficient of scalability increased from 0.26 to 0.48; and the median network edge increased from 0.00 to 0.07. Conclusions: Results of psychometric analyses vary substantially as a function of the proportion of non-depressed participants in the sample being studied. This provides a possible explanation for the lack of reproducibility of previous psychometric studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Foster & Meichun Mohler-Kuo, 2020. "The proportion of non-depressed subjects in a study sample strongly affects the results of psychometric analyses of depression symptoms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-13, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235272
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235272
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235272&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0235272?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Epskamp, Sacha & Cramer, Angélique O.J. & Waldorp, Lourens J. & Schmittmann, Verena D. & Borsboom, Denny, 2012. "qgraph: Network Visualizations of Relationships in Psychometric Data," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i04).
    2. John Horn, 1965. "A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 30(2), pages 179-185, June.
    3. Rutger Goekoop & Jaap G Goekoop, 2014. "A Network View on Psychiatric Disorders: Network Clusters of Symptoms as Elementary Syndromes of Psychopathology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-47, November.
    4. Rosseel, Yves, 2012. "lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i02).
    5. van der Ark, L. Andries, 2012. "New Developments in Mokken Scale Analysis in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i05).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wickelmaier, Florian & Strobl, Carolin & Zeileis, Achim, 2012. "Psychoco: Psychometric Computing in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i01).
    2. Golino, Hudson F. & Demetriou, Andreas, 2017. "Estimating the dimensionality of intelligence like data using Exploratory Graph Analysis," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 54-70.
    3. César Merino-Soto & Gina Chávez-Ventura & Verónica López-Fernández & Guillermo M. Chans & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano, 2022. "Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L): Psychometric and Measurement Invariance Evidence in Peruvian Undergraduate Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Zaitun Mohd Saman & Ab Hamid Siti-Azrin & Azizah Othman & Yee Cheng Kueh, 2021. "The Validity and Reliability of the Malay Version of the Cyberbullying Scale among Secondary School Adolescents in Malaysia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-12, November.
    5. Carlos Miguel Lemos & Ross Joseph Gore & Ivan Puga-Gonzalez & F LeRon Shults, 2019. "Dimensionality and factorial invariance of religiosity among Christians and the religiously unaffiliated: A cross-cultural analysis based on the International Social Survey Programme," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-36, May.
    6. Kan, Kees-Jan & van der Maas, Han L.J. & Levine, Stephen Z., 2019. "Extending psychometric network analysis: Empirical evidence against g in favor of mutualism?," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 52-62.
    7. Attanasio, Orazio & Blundell, Richard & Conti, Gabriella & Mason, Giacomo, 2020. "Inequality in socio-emotional skills: A cross-cohort comparison," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    8. Angel M. Dzhambov & Peter Lercher & Drozdstoy Stoyanov & Nadezhda Petrova & Stoyan Novakov & Donka D. Dimitrova, 2021. "University Students’ Self-Rated Health in Relation to Perceived Acoustic Environment during the COVID-19 Home Quarantine," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-21, March.
    9. Silvia Mariela Méndez-Prado & Vanessa Rodriguez & Kevin Peralta-Rizzo & Patricia Everaert & Martin Valcke, 2023. "An Assessment Tool to Identify the Financial Literacy Level of Financial Education Programs Participants’ Executed by Ecuadorian Financial Institutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-24, January.
    10. Adam P. McGuire & Candice L. Hayden & Rawda Tomoum & A. Solomon Kurz, 2022. "Development and Validation of the State Moral Elevation Scale: Assessing State-Level Elevation Across Nonclinical and Clinical Samples," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 2923-2946, August.
    11. César Merino-Soto & Manuel Fernández-Arata & Jaime Fuentes-Balderrama & Guillermo M. Chans & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano, 2022. "Research Perceived Competency Scale: A New Psychometric Adaptation for University Students’ Research Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-17, September.
    12. Likhanov, Maxim & Wang, Fang & Lyu, Jianing & Wang, Li & Zhou, Xinlin, 2024. "A special contribution from spatial ability to math word problem solving: Evidence from structural equation modelling and network analysis," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    13. Julia Krasko & Sabrina Intelisano & Maike Luhmann, 2022. "When Happiness is Both Joy and Purpose: The Complexity of the Pursuit of Happiness and Well-Being is Related to Actual Well-Being," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 3233-3261, October.
    14. José Luis Carrasco-Sáez & Marcelo Careaga Butter & María Graciela Badilla-Quintana & Juan Molina-Farfán, 2021. "Analysis of Psychometric Properties and Validation of the Personal Learning Environments Questionnaire (B-PLE) in Higher Education Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-17, August.
    15. Sati Bozkurt & Gizem B. Ekitli & Christopher L. Thomas & Jerrell C. Cassady, 2017. "Validation of the Turkish Version of the Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale–Revised," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(1), pages 21582440166, January.
    16. Dandara Gabriela Haag & Pedro Henrique Ribeiro Santiago & Davi Manzini Macedo & João Luiz Bastos & Yin Paradies & Lisa Jamieson, 2020. "Development and initial psychometric assessment of the race-related attitudes and multiculturalism scale in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, April.
    17. Nichole Fairbrother & Fanie Collardeau & Arianne Albert & Kathrin Stoll, 2022. "Screening for Perinatal Anxiety Using the Childbirth Fear Questionnaire: A New Measure of Fear of Childbirth," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-23, February.
    18. Nicola Magnavita & Carlo Chiorri, 2022. "Development and Validation of a New Measure of Work Annoyance Using a Psychometric Network Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-25, July.
    19. Jun Xie & Wataru Nozawa & Shunsuke Managi, 2023. "The nexus of top executives’ attributes, firm strategies, and outcomes: Large firms versus SMEs," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, December.
    20. Lau Lilleholt & Ingo Zettler & Cornelia Betsch & Robert Böhm, 2023. "Development and validation of the pandemic fatigue scale," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235272. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.