Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factor Structure of Teacher Ratings of the ODD Symptoms in Children

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Psychiatric Quarterly Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to determine the best model for Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) symptoms in children aged 3 to 15 years, as presented in the Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale. Teachers’ ratings of the ODD symptoms of 213 children from general community schools in Australia were obtained. The findings provided most support for a bifactor model based on Stringaris and Goodman’s [1] three-factor model (primary factors for irritable, hurtful, and headstrong). The general factor, but not the group factors in the model, showed high omega hierarchical and explained common variance. Thus, only the general factor in this model can be meaningfully interpreted. Also, the general factor was supported with regard to external validity. Specifically, this factor, but not the group factors, correlated strongly with ADHD inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity symptom groups, and other measures of behavioural and emotional problems. The taxonomic, diagnostic, practical, and research implications of the findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stringaris A, Goodman R. Three dimensions of oppositionality in youth. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2009;50(3):216–23. doi:10.1097/CHI.0b013e3181984f30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

  3. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.

  4. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual. 4th ed. Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.

  5. Krieger FV, Polanczyk GV, Goodman R, Rohde LA, Graeff-Martins AS, Salum G, et al. Dimensions of oppositionality in a Brazilian community sample: testing the DSM-5 proposal and etiological links. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2013;52(4):389–400. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2013.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Aebi M, Muller UC, Asherson P, Banaschewski T, Buitelaar J, Ebstein R, et al. Predictability of oppositional defiant disorder and symptom dimensions in children and adolescents with ADHD combined type. Psychol Med. 2010;40(12):2089–100. doi:10.1017/S0033291710000590.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Burke JD, Waldman I, Lahey BB. Predictive validity of childhood oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: implications for the DSM-V. J Abnorm Psychol. 2010;119(4):739–51. doi:10.1037/a0019708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rowe R, Costello EJ, Angold A, Copeland WE, Maughan B. Developmental pathways in oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder. J Abnorm Psychol. 2010;119(4):726. doi:10.1037/a0020798.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Burke JD. An affective dimension within oppositional defiant disorder symptoms among boys: personality and psychopathology outcomes into early adulthood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2012;53(11):1176–83. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02598.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Burke JD, Loeber R, Lahey BB, Rathouz PJ. Developmental transitions among affective and behavioral disorders in adolescent boys. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005;46:1200–10. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.00422.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Burke JD, Boylan K, Rowe R, Duku E, Stepp SD, Hipwell AE, et al. Identifying the irritability dimension of ODD: application of a modified bifactor model across five large community samples of children. J Abnorm Psychol. 2014;123(4):841–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lavigne JV, Bryant FB, Hopkins J, Gouze KR. Dimensions of oppositional defiant disorder in young children: model comparisons, gender and longitudinal invariance. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2015;43(3):423–39. doi:10.1007/s10802-014-9919-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Herzhoff K, Tackett JL. Subfactors of oppositional defiant disorder: converging evidence from structural and latent class analyses. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2016;57(1):18–29. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ezpeleta L, Granero R, de la Osa N, Penelo E, Domenech JM. Dimensions of oppositional defiant disorder in 3-year-old preschoolers. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2012;53(11):1128–38. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02545.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Goodman R. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1997;38(5):581–6. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gomez R. Factor structure of parent and teacher ratings of the ODD symptoms for Malaysian primary school children. Asian J Psychiatr. 2016; doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2016.10.013.

  17. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS]. Population census. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian standard classification of occupations. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Barkley RA, Murphy KR. A clinical workbook: attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. New York: Guilford; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Goodman R, Meltzer H, Bailey V. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1998;7(3):125–30. doi:10.1007/s007870050057.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus statistical modeling software: release 7.0. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard PÉ, Savalei V. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol Methods. 2012;17(3):354. doi:10.1037/a0029315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Beauducel A, Herzberg PY. On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Struct Equ Model. 2006;13(2):186–203. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lubke GH, Muthén BO. Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Struct Equ Model. 2004;11(4):514–34. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1104_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Millsap RE, Yun-Tein J. Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivar Behav Res. 2004;39(3):479–515. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3903_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods. 1998;3(4):424. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nye CD, Drasgow F. Assessing goodness of fit: simple rules of thumb simply do not work. Organ Res Methods. 2011;14(3):548–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Revelle W, Zinbarg RE. Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika. 2009;74(1):145–54. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zinbarg RE, Yovel I, Revelle W, McDonald RP. Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale's indicators: a comparison of estimators for ωh. Appl Psychol Meas. 2006;30(2):121–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bonifay WE, Reise SP, Scheines R, Meijer RR. When are multidimensional data unidimensional enough for structural equation modeling? An evaluation of the DETECT multidimensionality index. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2015;22(4):504–16. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.938596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hancock GR, Mueller RO. Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In: Structural equation modeling: Present and Future. 2001. pp. 195–216.

  32. Reise SP, Bonifay WE, Haviland MG. Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. J Pers Assess. 2013;95(2):129–40. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.725437.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, Li W. Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω H: their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika. 2005;70(1):123–33. doi:10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Brunner M, Nagy G, Wilhelm O. A tutorial on hierarchically structured constructs. J Pers. 2012;80(4):796–846. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00749.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. McDonald RP. Test theory: a unified approach. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Reise SP. The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivar Behav Res. 2012;47(5):667–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rodriguez A, Reise SP, Haviland MG. Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. J Pers Assess. 2016;98(3):223–37. doi:10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:155–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th revised edition). London: Sage Publications Ltd.; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors Contributions

Rapson Gomez planning, design and then writing up. Vasileios Stavropoulos literature review, and writing up. George Van Doorn literature review, and writing up.

Role of Funding Source

The study was not funded by any source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health Sciences and Psychology, Federation University Australia, University Drive, Mt Helen, PO Box 663, Ballarat, VIC, 3353, Australia

    Rapson Gomez, Vasileios Stavropoulos & George Van Doorn

  2. University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Vasileios Stavropoulos

Authors
  1. Rapson Gomez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vasileios Stavropoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. George Van Doorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vasileios Stavropoulos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Authors have no current financial or other interest with any organization currently or in future in terms of the research.

Ethical Statement

All procedures followed for the present study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study. No identifying information is included in this article. No animal or human studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gomez, R., Stavropoulos, V. & Van Doorn, G. Factor Structure of Teacher Ratings of the ODD Symptoms in Children. Psychiatr Q 89, 219–234 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-017-9527-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-017-9527-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation