The Latent Structure of Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia.

Gregory P Strauss, Alicia Nuñez, Anthony O Ahmed, Kimberly A Barchard, Eric Granholm, Brian Kirkpatrick, James M Gold, Daniel N Allen
Author Information
  1. Gregory P Strauss: Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens.
  2. Alicia Nuñez: Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
  3. Anthony O Ahmed: Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
  4. Kimberly A Barchard: Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
  5. Eric Granholm: Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego.
  6. Brian Kirkpatrick: Department of Psychiatry, University of Nevada, Reno.
  7. James M Gold: Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore.
  8. Daniel N Allen: Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Abstract

Importance: Negative symptoms are associated with a range of poor clinical outcomes, and currently available treatments generally do not produce a clinically meaningful response. Limited treatment progress may be owing in part to poor clarity regarding latent structure. Prior studies have inferred latent structure using exploratory factor analysis, which has led to the conclusion that there are 2 dimensions reflecting motivation and pleasure (MAP) and diminished expressivity (EXP) factors. However, whether these conclusions are statistically justified remains unclear because exploratory factor analysis does not test latent structure. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is needed to test competing models regarding the latent structure of a construct.
Objective: To evaluate the fit of 4 models of the latent structure of negative symptoms in schizophrenia using CFA.
Design, Setting, and Participants: Three cross-sectional studies were conducted on outpatients with schizophrenia who were rated on the 3 most conceptually contemporary measures: Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS), and Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS). Confirmatory factor analysis evaluated the following 4 models: (1) a 1-factor model; (2) a 2-factor model with EXP and MAP factors; (3) a 5-factor model with separate factors for the 5 domains of the National Institute of Mental Health consensus development conference (blunted affect, alogia, anhedonia, avolition, and asociality); and (4) a hierarchical model with 2 second-order factors reflecting EXP and MAP and 5 first-order factors reflecting the 5 consensus domains.
Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included CFA model fit statistics derived from symptom severity scores on the SANS, BNSS, and CAINS.
Results: The study population included 860 outpatients with schizophrenia (68.0% male; mean [SD] age, 43.0 [11.4] years). Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on each scale, including 268 patients for the SANS, 192 for the BNSS, and 400 for the CAINS. The 1- and 2-factor models provided poor fit for the SANS, BNSS, and CAINS as indicated by comparative fit indexes (CFIs) and Tucker Lewis indexes (TLIs) less than 0.950, RMSEAs that exceeded the 0.080 threshold, and WRMRs greater than 1.00. The 5-factor and hierarchical models provided excellent fit, with the 5-factor model being more parsimonious. The CFIs and TLIs met the 0.95 threshold and the 1.00 threshold for both factor models with all 3 measures. Interestingly, the RMSEAs for the 5-factor model and the hierarchical model fell under the 0.08 threshold for the BNSS and the CAINS but not the SANS.
Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the recent trend toward conceptualizing the latent structure of negative symptoms as 2 distinct dimensions does not adequately capture the complexity of the construct. The latent structure of negative symptoms is best conceptualized in relation to the 5 consensus domains. Implications for identifying pathophysiological mechanisms and targeted treatments are discussed.

References

  1. Schizophr Res. 1998 May 25;31(2-3):113-20 [PMID: 9689715]
  2. Am J Psychiatry. 2007 Oct;164(10):1593-602 [PMID: 17898352]
  3. Br J Psychiatry. 1991 Mar;158:317-22 [PMID: 2036528]
  4. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Oct 22;12:159 [PMID: 23088287]
  5. Schizophr Bull. 2006 Apr;32(2):214-9 [PMID: 16481659]
  6. Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Feb;170(2):165-72 [PMID: 23377637]
  7. Schizophr Bull. 2017 Jul 1;43(4):712-719 [PMID: 28969356]
  8. Schizophr Bull. 2006 Apr;32(2):274-8 [PMID: 16177274]
  9. Psychopathology. 1995;28(1):7-17 [PMID: 7871123]
  10. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014 May;24(5):725-36 [PMID: 24461724]
  11. Am J Psychiatry. 1995 Oct;152(10):1450-7 [PMID: 7573583]
  12. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012 Feb;69(2):121-7 [PMID: 21969420]
  13. Schizophr Res. 2011 Nov;132(2-3):140-5 [PMID: 21798716]
  14. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1989;25(2):159-63 [PMID: 2602512]
  15. Schizophr Bull. 2006 Apr;32(2):238-45 [PMID: 16254064]
  16. Schizophr Bull. 2019 Mar 7;45(2):305-314 [PMID: 29912473]
  17. Psychol Bull. 1990 Mar;107(2):238-46 [PMID: 2320703]
  18. Schizophr Bull. 2017 Jul 1;43(4):706-711 [PMID: 28586462]
  19. Schizophr Bull. 2016 Nov;42(6):1384-1394 [PMID: 27174556]
  20. J Psychiatr Res. 2013 Jun;47(6):783-90 [PMID: 23453820]
  21. Multivariate Behav Res. 1990 Apr 1;25(2):173-80 [PMID: 26794479]
  22. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 1989 Nov;(7):49-58 [PMID: 2695141]
  23. World Psychiatry. 2017 Feb;16(1):14-24 [PMID: 28127915]
  24. Schizophr Res. 2012 Dec;142(1-3):96-8 [PMID: 23062750]
  25. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Feb;31(1):161-8 [PMID: 20889248]
  26. Am J Psychiatry. 1999 Mar;156(3):406-11 [PMID: 10080556]
  27. Schizophr Bull. 2011 Mar;37(2):300-5 [PMID: 20558531]
  28. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261-76 [PMID: 3616518]
  29. Mol Neuropsychiatry. 2015 Dec;1(4):191-200 [PMID: 27606313]
  30. Dev Psychol. 2008 Mar;44(2):457-67 [PMID: 18331136]
  31. Vertex. 2010 Sep-Oct;21(93):394-400 [PMID: 21218204]
  32. PLoS One. 2009 Aug 12;4(8):e6598 [PMID: 19672310]
  33. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014 May;24(5):737-43 [PMID: 24275698]
  34. Schizophr Res. 2018 Mar;193:69-76 [PMID: 28673753]
  35. Psychiatry Res. 2008 Mar 15;158(2):256-9 [PMID: 18206248]
  36. Schizophr Res. 2016 Jan;170(1):198-204 [PMID: 26701649]

Grants

  1. K23 MH092530/NIMH NIH HHS
  2. R61 MH110019/NIMH NIH HHS
  3. R01 MH080066/NIMH NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Adult
Cross-Sectional Studies
Factor Analysis, Statistical
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Motivation
Pleasure
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
Reproducibility of Results
Schizophrenia
Schizophrenic Psychology
Severity of Illness Index

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0modellatentstructurefactorNegativeanalysisfactorsmodelsfitSANSBNSSCAINS0symptoms25-factor5thresholdpoorreflectingMAPEXPConfirmatoryCFA4negativeschizophrenia3Symptoms1domainsconsensushierarchicaltreatmentsregardingstudiesusingexploratorydimensionstestconstructconductedoutpatientsScaleAssessment2-factorOutcomesincludedprovidedindexesCFIsTLIsRMSEAs00Importance:associatedrangeclinicaloutcomescurrentlyavailablegenerallyproduceclinicallymeaningfulresponseLimitedtreatmentprogressmayowingpartclarityPriorinferredledconclusionmotivationpleasurediminishedexpressivityHoweverwhetherconclusionsstatisticallyjustifiedremainsunclearneededcompetingObjective:evaluateDesignSettingParticipants:Threecross-sectionalratedconceptuallycontemporarymeasures:BriefSymptomClinicalInterviewevaluatedfollowingmodels:1-factorseparateNationalInstituteMentalHealthdevelopmentconferencebluntedaffectalogiaanhedoniaavolitionasocialitysecond-orderfirst-orderMainMeasures:statisticsderivedsymptomseverityscoresResults:studypopulation860680%malemean[SD]age43[114]yearsscaleincluding268patients1924001-indicatedcomparativeTuckerLewisless950exceeded080WRMRsgreaterexcellentparsimoniousmet95measuresInterestinglyfell08ConclusionsRelevance:findingssuggestrecenttrendtowardconceptualizingdistinctadequatelycapturecomplexitybestconceptualizedrelationImplicationsidentifyingpathophysiologicalmechanismstargeteddiscussedLatentStructureSchizophrenia

Similar Articles

Cited By