Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T19:19:32.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is there a contradiction between the network and latent variable perspectives?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

Stephen M. Humphry  and
Joshua A. McGrane
Stephen M. Humphry
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Education, University of Western Australia, M428, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia. stephen.humphry@uwa.edu.aujoshua.mcgrane@uwa.edu.auhttp://www.education.uwa.edu.au/ppl
Joshua A. McGrane
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Education, University of Western Australia, M428, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia. stephen.humphry@uwa.edu.aujoshua.mcgrane@uwa.edu.auhttp://www.education.uwa.edu.au/ppl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

First, we question whether Cramer et al.'s proposed network model can provide a viable scientific foundation for investigating comorbidity without invoking latent variables in some form. Second, the authors' claim that the network perspective is radically different from a latent variable perspective rests upon an undemonstrated premise. Without being demonstrated, we think the premise is potentially misleading.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 2-3 , June 2010 , pp. 160 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrich, D. (1985) A latent trait model for items with response dependencies: Implications for test construction and analysis. In: Test design: Developments in psychology and psychometrics, ed. Embretson, S. E., pp. 245–75. Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrich, D. (2005) The Rasch model explained. In: Applied Rasch measurement: A book of exemplars, ed. Alagumalai, S., Durtis, D. D. & Hungi, N., pp. 308–28. Springer-Kluwer.Google Scholar
Borsboom, D. (2008) Psychometric perspectives on diagnostic systems. Journal of Clinical Psychology 64:1089–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J. & Van Heerden, J. (2004) The concept of validity. Psychological Review 111:1061–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holland, J. H. (1998) Emergence: From chaos to order. Perseus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, S. (1993) Origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R. (1968) Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Michell, J. (1999) Measurement in psychology: A critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasch, G. (1960/1980) Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests, expanded edition, with foreword and afterword by B. D. Wright. University of Chicago Press. (Original work published in 1960 by the Danish Institute for Educational Research.)Google Scholar
Verhelst, N. D. & Verstralen, H. H. F. M. (2008) Some considerations on the partial credit model. Psicologica 29:229–54.Google Scholar