Are major categories in abnormal psychology actually good labels, statistically?
Big 5 personality traits were discovered through factor analysis.
Terms like depression, anxiety and personality disorders are or are entering common vernacular, but of unknown origin.
Google searched for (one of ’construct validity and factor analysis) + (one of: depression, anxiety and personality disorder) and selected relevant results on the visible half of the first page (didn’t scroll don’t more than flick)
Of those pages, closed tabs about research that was too specific (in journal of sports psychology on college wrestlers, a curious paper from a guy who uses the term ‘nominology’ which based on a google search, is a noologism used by noone else? or based on foreigners with very different culture—Chinese this one
Looks like the popular depression and anxiety tests are pretty valid but also non-overlap between test items indicates that they’re overly broad terms. Personality disorder papers provided insufficient statistical info in the abstract and used vague terms.
Looks like the popular depression and anxiety tests are pretty valid but also non-overlap between test items indicates that they’re overly broad terms.
The fact that you don’t understand overlap as a layperson doesn’t indicate that a test doesn’t test for a real thing.
On the other hand the DSM-V categories are likely not the best possible label. That even the NIH opinion who declared that they are willing to fund studies that don’t use them and try to find new categories.
If you want to dig deeper in how to think about such terms “How to think straight about Psychology” by CFAR advisor and professor of psychology Keith Stanovich is a good read.
Did some 5-min research for curiosity.
Are major categories in abnormal psychology actually good labels, statistically?
Big 5 personality traits were discovered through factor analysis.
Terms like depression, anxiety and personality disorders are or are entering common vernacular, but of unknown origin.
Google searched for (one of ’construct validity and factor analysis) + (one of: depression, anxiety and personality disorder) and selected relevant results on the visible half of the first page (didn’t scroll don’t more than flick)
Of those pages, closed tabs about research that was too specific (in journal of sports psychology on college wrestlers, a curious paper from a guy who uses the term ‘nominology’ which based on a google search, is a noologism used by noone else? or based on foreigners with very different culture—Chinese this one
Looks like the popular depression and anxiety tests are pretty valid but also non-overlap between test items indicates that they’re overly broad terms. Personality disorder papers provided insufficient statistical info in the abstract and used vague terms.
The fact that you don’t understand overlap as a layperson doesn’t indicate that a test doesn’t test for a real thing. On the other hand the DSM-V categories are likely not the best possible label. That even the NIH opinion who declared that they are willing to fund studies that don’t use them and try to find new categories.
If you want to dig deeper in how to think about such terms “How to think straight about Psychology” by CFAR advisor and professor of psychology Keith Stanovich is a good read.