Articlehybrid2017

Evidence that psychopathology symptom networks have limited replicability.

Miriam K. Forbes · Aidan G.C. Wright · Kristian E. Markon · Robert Frank Krueger

357 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Abnormal Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Mental Health Research Topics Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes Functional Brain Connectivity Studies

Abstract

Network analysis is quickly gaining popularity in psychopathology research as a method that aims to reveal causal relationships among individual symptoms. To date, 4 main types of psychopathology networks have been proposed: (a) association networks, (b) regularized concentration networks, (c) relative importance networks, and (d) directed acyclic graphs. The authors examined the replicability of these analyses based on symptoms of major depression and generalized anxiety between and within 2 highly similar epidemiological samples (i.e., the National Comorbidity Survey-Replication [n = 9282] and the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing [n = 8841]). Although association networks were stable, the 3 other types of network analysis (i.e., the conditional independence networks) had poor replicability between and within methods and samples. The detailed aspects of the models-such as the estimation of specific edges and the centrality of individual nodes-were particularly unstable. For example, 44% of the symptoms were estimated as the "most influential" on at least 1 centrality index across the 6 conditional independence networks in the full samples, and only 13-21% of the edges were consistently estimated across these networks. One of the likely reasons for the instability of the networks is the predominance of measurement error in the assessment of individual symptoms. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for the growing field of psychopathology network research, and conclude that novel results originating from psychopathology networks should be held to higher standards of evidence before they are ready for dissemination or implementation in the field. (PsycINFO Database Record

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 357 citations exist upstream.

References

2015Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science 2016Estimating Psychological Networks and their Accuracy: A Tutorial Paper 2012qgraph : Network Visualizations of Relationships in Psychometric Data 2004The World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI)2013Network Analysis: An Integrative Approach to the Structure of Psychopathology 2004A Manifesto on Psychology as Idiographic Science: Bringing the Person Back Into Scientific Psychology, This Time Forever 2016Identifying highly influential nodes in the complicated grief network.2010Comorbidity: A network perspective

Cited by

2021Estimating the Stability of Psychological Dimensions via Bootstrap Exploratory Graph Analysis: A Monte Carlo Simulation and Tutorial 2019Problems with Centrality Measures in Psychopathology Symptom Networks: Why Network Psychometrics Cannot Escape Psychometric Theory 2020A Psychometric Network Perspective on the Validity and Validation of Personality Trait Questionnaires 2017False alarm? A comprehensive reanalysis of “Evidence that psychopathology symptom networks have limited replicability” by Forbes, Wright, Markon, and Krueger (2017).

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.