There are several important decisions that must be made when implementing taxometric procedures such as mean above minus below a cut (MAMBAC), maximum covariance (MAXCOV), and maximum eigenvalue (MAXEIG). A Monte Carlo study was performed with 10,000 (5,000 categorical, 5,000 dimensional) samples to examine 5 ways to locate the first and last MAMBAC cuts and 24 ways to perform MAXCOV and MAXEIG. For MAMBAC, there was little difference across conditions, with slightly more accurate results obtained when a small, fixed number of cases (n = 10 or 25) was located beyond the most extreme cuts. For MAXCOV and MAXEIG, the results were more palpable: MAXCOV slightly outperformed MAXEIG, windows achieved significantly better results than intervals, and a larger number of cases per subsample were associated with more accurate results. Alcohol misuse data obtained from a group of male prisoners were used to illustrate relationships observed in the Monte Carlo study.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author .
2.
Dana, D.A. ( 1990). Alcoholism and antisocial personality disorder: Related discrete personality variables?Dissertation Abstracts International , 51(04), 2056B. (University Microfilms No. AAT90-24616)
3.
Gangestad, S., & Snyder, M. ( 1985). To carve nature at its joints: On the existence of discrete classes in personality. Psychological Review, 92, 317-349.
4.
Green, B.A., Ahmed, A.O., Marcus, D.K., & Walters, G.D. ( 2009). The latent structure of alcohol use pathology in an epidemiological sample. Manuscript submitted for publication.
5.
Hoaglin, D.C. ( 1985). Summarizing shape numerically: The g-and-h distributions . In D. C. Hoaglin, F. Mosteller, & J. W. Tukey (Eds.), Exploring data, tables, trends, and shapes (pp. 461-511). New York: Wiley.
6.
Lenzenweger, M.F. ( 2004). Consideration of the challenges, complications, and pitfalls of taxometric analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 10-23.
7.
Meehl, P.E. ( 1995). Bootstraps taxometrics: Solving the classification problem in psychopathology. American Psychologist, 50, 266-275.
8.
Meehl, P.E. ( 2004). What’s in a taxon? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 39-43.
9.
Meehl, P.E., & Yonce, L.J. ( 1994). Taxometric analysis: I. Detecting taxonicity with two quantitative indicators using means above and below a sliding cut (MAMBAC procedure). Psychological Reports, 74, 1059-1274.
10.
Meehl, P.E., & Yonce, L.J. ( 1996). Taxometric analysis: II. Detecting taxonicity using covariance of two quantitative indicators in successive intervals of a third indicator (MAXCOV procedure). Psychological Reports, 78, 1091-1227.
11.
Ruscio, J. ( 2007). Taxometric analysis: An empirically-grounded approach to implementing the model. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1588-1622.
12.
Ruscio, J. ( 2009). Taxometric programs for the R computing environment: User’s manual [computer software and manual]. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://www.taxometricmethod.com
13.
Ruscio, J., Haslam, N., & Ruscio, A.M. ( 2006). Introduction to the taxometric method: A practical guide . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Ruscio, J., & Kaczetow, W. ( 2008). Simulating multivariate non-normal data using an iterative algorithm. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43, 355-381.
15.
Ruscio, J., & Kaczetow, W. ( 2009). Differentiating categories and dimensions: Evaluating the robustness of taxometric analyses. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 259-280.
16.
Ruscio, J., & Marcus, D.K. ( 2007). Detecting small taxa using simulated comparison data: A reanalysis of Beach, Amir, and Bau’s (2005) data. Psychological Assessment, 19, 241-246.
17.
Ruscio, J., Ruscio, A.M., & Keane, T.M. ( 2004). Using taxometric analysis to distinguish a small taxon from a latent dimension with positively skewed indicators: The case of involuntary defeat syndrome. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 145-154.
18.
Ruscio, J., Ruscio, A.M., & Meron, M. ( 2007). Applying the bootstrap to taxometric analysis: Generating empirical sampling distributions to help interpret results. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 349-386.
19.
Ruscio, J., & Walters, G.D. ( 2009). Using comparison data to differentiate categorical and dimensional data by examining factor score distributions: Resolving the mode problem. Psychological Assessment, 21, 578-594.
20.
Ruscio, J., Walters, G.D., Marcus, D.K., & Kaczetow, W. (in press). Comparing the relative fit of categorical and dimensional latent variable models using consistency tests. Psychological Assessment .
21.
Slade, T., Grove, R., & Teeson, M. ( 2009). A taxometric analysis of alcohol abuse and dependence in a general population sample: Evidence of dimensional latent structure and implications for DSM-V. Addiction, 104, 742-751.
Walters, G.D. ( 2008). The latent structure of alcohol use disorders: A taxometric analysis of structured interview data obtained from male federal prison inmates . Alcohol and Alcoholism, 43, 326-333.
24.
Walters, G.D. ( 2009). Taxometric analysis of alcohol dependence in male prisoners: Measuring latent structure with indicators from DSM-IV. Addiction Research & Theory, 17, 372-380.
25.
Walters, G.D., Diamond, P.M., & Magaletta, P.R. (in press). What is the latent structure of alcohol use disorders? A taxometric analysis of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) alcohol problems scale in male and female inmates. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.
26.
Walters, G.D., Henning, C.L., Negola, T.D., & Fricke, L.A. ( 2009). The latent structure of alcohol dependence in female federal prisoners. Addiction Research & Theory, 17, 525-537.
27.
Walters, G.D., & Ruscio, J. ( 2009). To sum or not to sum: Taxometric analysis with ordered categorical items. Psychological Assessment, 21, 99-111.
