The bifactor model of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been extensively explored, yet the tendency of the bifactor model to overfit data necessitates investigation of alternative, more parsimonious models, such as a modified bifactor structure. The present study used item response theory to compare unidimensional, correlated factors, bifactor, and modified bifactor models of ADHD symptoms in a clinical sample of youth (N = 1,612) and examined differential item functioning (DIF) by age (<11 and ≥11 years) and gender. Results suggested that two restricted bifactor models showed superior fit compared with alternative models, and support strong general and inattention dimensions, with unreliable hyperactivity and impulsivity dimensions. No DIF was found across gender or age. The present study confirms that the general dimension (i.e., inhibition) and one specific dimension (i.e., sustained attention) represent distinct variability in ADHD symptoms that may improve prediction of symptom persistence, treatment response, or functional outcomes.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., Text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
2.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
AriasV. B.PonceF. P.NúñezD. E. (2016). Bifactor models of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): An evaluation of three necessary but underused psychometric indexes. Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1073191116679260
4.
ArnettA. B.PenningtonB. F.WillcuttE. G.DeFriesJ. C.OlsonR. K. (2015). Sex differences in ADHD symptom severity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56, 632-639. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12337
5.
BiedermanJ.MickE.FaraoneS. V. (2000). Age-dependent decline of symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Impact of remission definition and symptom type. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 816-818. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.157.5.816
6.
BockR. D.AitkinM. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443-459. doi:10.1007/BF02293801
7.
BonifayW.CaiL. (2017). On the complexity of item response theory models. Multivariate Behavioral Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/00273171.2017.1309262
8.
BonifayW.LaneS. P.ReiseS. P. (2016). Three concerns with applying a bifactor model as a structure of psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2167702616657069
9.
CaiL. (2010). High-dimensional exploratory item factor analysis by a Metropolis–Hastings Robbins–Monro algorithm. Psychometrika, 75, 33-57. doi:10.1007/s11336-009-9136-x
10.
CaiL. (2012). flexMIRT: Flexible multilevel item factor analysis and test scoring. Seattle, WA: Vector Psychometric Group.
ChenW.-H.ThissenD. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 265-289. doi:10.3102/10769986022003265
13.
DuPaulG. J.PowerT. J.AnastopoulosA. D.ReidR. (1998). ADHD Rating Scale-IV: Checklists, norms, and clinical interpretations. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
14.
Garcia-RosalesA.VitoratouS.BanaschewskiT.AshersonP.BuitelaarJ.OadesR. D.. . . ChenW. (2015). Are all the 18 DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria equally useful for diagnosing ADHD and predicting comorbid conduct problems?European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 24, 1325-1337. doi:10.1007/s00787-015-0683-7
15.
GibbinsC.ToplakM. E.FloraD. B.WeissM. D.TannockR. (2012). Evidence for a general factor model of ADHD in adults. Journal of Attention Disorders, 16, 635-644. doi:10.1177/1087054711416310
GomezR. (2008). Item response theory analyses of the parent and teacher ratings of the DSM-IV ADHD Rating Scale. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 865-885. doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9218-8
18.
GomezR.VanceA.GomezR. M. (2013). Validity of the ADHD bifactor model in general community samples of adolescents and adults, and a clinic-referred sample of children and adolescents. Journal of Attention Disorders. doi:10.1177/1087054713480034
19.
HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In CudeckR.du ToitS. H. C.SorbomD. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future—A Festschrift in honor of Karl Joreskog (pp. 195-216). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
20.
HansenM.CaiL.StuckyB. D.TuckerJ. S.ShadelW. G.EdelenM. O. (2014). Methodology for developing and evaluating the PROMIS smoking item banks. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 16(Suppl. 3), S175-S189. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntt123
21.
HartE. L.LaheyB. B.LoeberR.ApplegateB.FrickP. J. (1995). Developmental change in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in boys: A four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23, 729-749.
22.
JöreskogK. G.SörbomD. (1988). PRELIS: A program for multivariate data screening and data summarization. A pre-processor for LISREL (2nd ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
23.
KaufmanJ.BirmaherB.BrentD.RaoU.FlynnC.MoreciP.. . . RyanN. (1997). Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL): Initial reliability and validity data. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 980-988. doi:10.1097/00004583-199707000-00021
24.
LaheyB. B.PelhamW. E.LoneyJ.LeeS. S.WillcuttE. G. (2005). Instability of the DSM-IV subtypes of ADHD from preschool through elementary school. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 896-902. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.8.896
25.
LiJ. J.ReiseS. P.Chronis-TuscanoA.MikamiA. Y.LeeS. S. (2015). Item response theory analysis of ADHD symptoms in children with and without ADHD. Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1073191115591595
26.
MartelM. M.von EyeA.NiggJ. T. (2010). Revisiting the latent structure of ADHD: Is there a “g” factor?Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 51, 905-914. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02232.x
27.
MartelM. M.von EyeA.NiggJ. (2012). Developmental differences in structure of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) between childhood and adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 36, 279-292. doi:10.1177/0165025412444077
28.
McDonaldR. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
McGoughJ. J.LooS. K.SturmA.CowenJ.LeuchterA. F.CookI. A. (2015). An eight-week, open-trial, pilot feasibility study of trigeminal nerve stimulation in youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Brain Stimulation, 8, 299-304. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2014.11.013
30.
McGoughJ. J.McCrackenJ. T.LooS. K.ManganielloM.LeungM. C.TietjensJ. R.. . . SugarC. A. (2009). A candidate gene analysis of methylphenidate response in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 1155-1164.
31.
MislevyD. R. J. (1984). Estimating latent distributions. Psychometrika, 49, 359-381. doi:10.1007/BF02306026
32.
MolinaB. (2011). Delinquency and substance use in ADHD: Adolescent and young adult outcomes in developmental context. In EvansS. W.HozaB. (Eds.), Treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Assessment and intervention in developmental context (pp. 19.1-19.52) Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
33.
MonroeS.CaiL. (2015). Evaluating structural equation models for categorical outcomes: A new test statistic and a practical challenge of interpretation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 569-583. doi:10.1080/00273171.2015.1032398
34.
MurrayA. L.JohnsonW. (2013). The limitations of model fit in comparing the bi-factor versus higher-order models of human cognitive ability structure. Intelligence, 41, 407-422. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.06.004
35.
MuthénB. O.du ToitS. H. C.SpisicD. (1997). Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes, . Psychometrika, 75, 1-45.
36.
MuthénB. O.KaplanD.HollisM. (1987). On structural equation modeling with data that are not missing completely at random. Psychometrika, 52, 431-462. doi:10.1007/BF02294365
37.
NormandS.FloraD. B.ToplakM. E.TannockR. (2012). Evidence for a general ADHD factor from a longitudinal general school population study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40, 555-567. doi:10.1007/s10802-011-9584-5
38.
PurpuraD. J.WilsonS. B.LoniganC. J. (2010). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms in preschool children: Examining psychometric properties using item response theory. Psychological Assessment, 22, 546-558.
39.
ReckaseM. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory (Vol. 150). New York, NY: Springer.
40.
ReiseS. P.KimD. S.MansolfM.WidamanK. F. (2016). Is the bifactor model a better model or is it just better at modeling implausible responses? Application of iteratively reweighted least squares to the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 818-838. doi:10.1080/00273171.2016.1243461
41.
ReiseS. P.ScheinesR.WidamanK. F.HavilandM. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 5-26. doi:10.1177/0013164412449831
42.
RiddleM. A.YershovaK.LazzarettoD.PaykinaN.YenokyanG.GreenhillL.. . . PosnerK. (2013). The preschool attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder treatment study (PATS) 6-year follow-up. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 52, 264-278.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2012.12.007
43.
RodenackerK.HautmannC.Görtz-DortenA.DöpfnerM. (2016). The factor structure of ADHD—Different models, analyses and informants in a bifactor framework. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 39, 92-102. doi:10.1007/s10862-016-9565-7
44.
RodriguezA.ReiseS. P.HavilandM. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21, 137-150. doi:10.1037/met0000045
45.
RucklidgeJ. J. (2010). Gender differences in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 33, 357-373. doi:10.1016/j.psc.2010.01.006
46.
SamejimaF. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 34(4Pt. 2), 100.
47.
SijtsmaK. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107-120. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
48.
SireciS. G.ThissenD.WainerH. (1991). On the reliability of testlet-based tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 237-247.
49.
SmithL. C.TammL.HughesC. W.BernsteinI. H. (2013). Separate and overlapping relationships of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders, 5, 9-20. doi:10.1007/s12402-012-0091-5
50.
SteinbergL. (1994). Context and serial-order effects in personality measurement: Limits on the generality of measuring changes the measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 341-349. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.341
51.
StuckyB. D.EdelenM. O. (2015). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In ReiseS. P.RevickiD. A. (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling (pp. 183-206). New York, NY: Routledge.
52.
ToplakM. E.PitchA.FloraD. B.IwenofuL.GhelaniK.JainU.TannockR. (2009). The unity and diversity of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity in ADHD: Evidence for a general factor with separable dimensions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 1137-1150. doi:10.1007/s10802-009-9336-y
53.
ToplakM. E.SorgeG. B.FloraD. B.ChenW.BanaschewskiT.BuitelaarJ.. . . FaraoneS. V. (2012). The hierarchical factor model of ADHD: Invariant across age and national groupings?Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 292-303. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02500.x
54.
UllebøA. K.BreivikK.GillbergC.LundervoldA. J.PosserudM.-B. (2012). The factor structure of ADHD in a general population of primary school children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 927-936. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02549.x
55.
WagnerF.MartelM. M.Cogo-MoreiraH.MaiaC. R. M.PanP. M.RohdeL. A.SalumG. A. (2016). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder dimensionality: The reliable “g” and the elusive “s” dimensions. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 25, 83-90. doi:10.1007/s00787-015-0709-1
56.
WillcuttE. G. (2012). The prevalence of DSM-IV attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analytic review. Neurotherapeutics, 9, 490-499. doi:10.1007/s13311-012-0135-8
57.
WillcuttE. G.DoyleA. E.NiggJ. T.FaraoneS. V.PenningtonB. F. (2005). Validity of the executive function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analytic review. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1336-1346. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.02.006
58.
WillcuttE. G.NiggJ. T.PenningtonB. F.SolantoM. V.RohdeL. A.TannockR.. . . LaheyB. B. (2012). Validity of DSM-IV attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom dimensions and subtypes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 991-1010.
59.
WilloughbyM. T.BlantonZ. E.InvestigatorsF. L. P. (2015). Replication and external validation of a bi-factor parameterization of attention deficit/hyperactivity symptomatology. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44, 68-79. doi:10.1080/15374416.2013.850702
60.
WoodsC. M. (2007). Empirical histograms in item response theory with ordinal data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 73-87. doi:10.1177/0013164406288163
