Abstract
On page 1 of his classic text, Millsap (2011) states, “Measurement invariance is built on the notion that a measuring device should function the same way across varied conditions, so long as those varied conditions are irrelevant [emphasis added] to the attribute being measured.” By construction, measurement invariance techniques require not only detecting varied conditions but also ruling out that these conditions inform our understanding of measured domains (i.e., conditions that do not contain domain-relevant information). In fact, measurement invariance techniques possess great utility when theory and research inform their application to specific, varied conditions (e.g., cultural, ethnic, or racial background of test respondents) that, if not detected, introduce measurement biases, and, thus, depress measurement validity (e.g., academic achievement and intelligence). Yet, we see emerging bodies of work where scholars have “put the cart before the horse” when it comes to measurement invariance, and they apply these techniques to varied conditions that, in fact, may reflect domain-relevant information. These bodies of work highlight a larger problem in measurement that likely cuts across many areas of scholarship. In one such area, youth mental health, researchers commonly encounter a set of conditions that nullify the use of measurement invariance, namely discrepancies between survey reports completed by multiple informants, such as parents, teachers, and youth themselves (i.e., informant discrepancies). In this paper, we provide an overview of conceptual, methodological, and measurement factors that should prevent researchers from applying measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies. Along the way, we cite evidence from the last 15 years indicating that informant discrepancies reflect domain-relevant information. We also apply this evidence to recent uses of measurement invariance techniques in youth mental health. Based on prior evidence, we highlight the implications of applying these techniques to multi-informant data, when the informant discrepancies observed within these data might reflect domain-relevant information. We close by calling for a moratorium on applying measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments. In doing so, we describe how the state of the science would need to fundamentally “flip” to justify applying these techniques to detect informant discrepancies in this area of work.
Introduction
What measurable sources of variance meaningfully inform our understanding of psychological phenomena? This question exemplifies a persistent struggle in scholarship on measurement, particularly when the phenomenon under investigation necessitates use of multivariate approaches to measurement. By construction, multivariate approaches result in researchers estimating competing sources of variance. One common approach involves leveraging multiple informants to assess a target person’s psychological functioning, such as self-reports from clients as well as reports from significant others in clients’ lives (e.g., caregivers and teachers in the case of youth; Hunsley and Mash, 2007). This approach requires differentiating variance that is shared among individual data sources in multivariate space (i.e., common variance) and variance that is particular to a given source (i.e., unique variance). Here, our central thesis is that much scholarship in measurement leads researchers down a path toward overly emphasizing common variance. This path even compels scholars to apply analytic techniques to measurement conditions that clearly violate assumptions underlying their use, and with the untoward effect of depressing measurement validity. In what follows, we suggest that measurement invariance techniques, particularly when they are incorrectly applied to scholarly work in specific areas (e.g., youth mental health), typify the concerns we raise. These concerns generalize to many other analytic techniques and, by extension, affect areas of study beyond the area highlighted in this paper (e.g., education, human development, pediatrics, personality, psychiatry, public health, sociology, and social work).
On page 1 of his classic text, Millsap (2011) presents a cogent operational definition of measurement invariance: “Measurement invariance is built on the notion that a measuring device should function the same way across varied conditions, so long as those varied conditions are irrelevant [emphasis added] to the attribute being measured.” Millsap’s definition serves as the “north star” of this paper. As the definition indicates, use of these techniques requires: (1) detecting conditions under which the measured domain might vary and (2) ruling out the possibility that these conditions inform our understanding of measured domains, or provide what we refer to as domain-relevant information (see also De Los Reyes et al., 2022a). This highlights a core principle: Efforts to distinguish between domain-relevant and domain-irrelevant measurement conditions should precede use of measurement invariance techniques.
Perhaps the clearest example of proper applications of measurement invariance techniques pertains to high-stakes testing scenarios, such as those found in academic and work settings (e.g., Meredith, 1993). In these settings, researchers have long-implemented standardized tests designed to index domains relevant to performance, such as academic achievement, scholarly aptitude, and intelligence (see Robertson and Smith, 2001; Reynolds et al., 2006). Selection decisions regarding placements in academic and/or work settings rely, in part, on the outcomes of these tests. Respondents who complete these tests also happen to be the applicants for placements in these settings, such as a law school applicant completing an entrance exam, or a workplace applicant completing a job-relevant task (e.g., of executive functioning). These tests produce individual differences in scores reflecting performance on setting-relevant domains, and respondents vary from each other on characteristics other than their test scores, such as demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender identity, and racial/ethnic background). These sources of variance raise the question: Should respondents’ demographic characteristics be considered when interpreting test scores? Here, theory and research become particularly instrumental when deciding whether to apply measurement invariance techniques.
The consensus view among scholars is that variance in performance domains has little to do with respondents’ demographic characteristics (Council of National Psychological Associations for the Advancement of Ethnic Minority Interests [CNPAAEMI], 2016). In large part, this consensus view stems from the absence of a compelling theoretical and empirically based justification to claim otherwise (e.g., for a review relevant to gender differences and similarities in performance, see Hyde, 2014). This lack of compelling theory and evidence translates to researchers in the area of performance evaluations and decision-making leveraging measurement invariance techniques to great effect. In particular, measurement invariance techniques facilitate detecting items on performance tests that appear to operate differently as a function of respondents’ demographic characteristics (i.e., they exhibit differential item functioning; Osterlind and Everson, 2009). In these instances, group-specific response patterns reflect a kind of unique variance on test items, distinguishable from the variance that appears to share commonalities among groups or items that are invariant with respect to respondents’ demographic characteristics. If prior theory and research provided insufficient support for treating respondents’ demographic characteristics as domain-relevant information, then the group-specific, unique variance reflected by these characteristics reflects a measurement confound—an artifact of measurement that is irrelevant to the measured domain (e.g., domains linked to performance on an intelligence test). Here, items that function differently among respondents from different demographic groups reflect biased performance estimates. If such items were retained on a test, individual differences in respondents’ scores would be contaminated by measurement confounds. Retaining these biased items on a test and treating them the same as all other items−even those that are invariant concerning respondents’ demographic characteristics−would not only depress the validity of performance estimates but also render inaccurate any decisions based on these estimates (e.g., personnel selection, acceptance decisions).
High-stakes testing scenarios, such as those found in academic and work settings, comprise one area that exemplifies the proper use of measurement invariance. These scenarios highlight the consequences of not leveraging measurement invariance techniques when theory and research demand their use. However, the reverse is also true. The use of measurement invariance techniques when there are clear theoretical and empirical reasons to avoid using them poses similarly grave consequences to measurement validity and decision-making. Relatively underemphasized in psychological measurement is the study of circumstances in which researchers should refrain from using measurement invariance techniques.
In this paper, we address four aims. First, we briefly describe key measurement practices in youth mental health research, and the measurement conditions these practices often produce. Second, we describe a body of work that provides a compelling account of why researchers should avoid using measurement invariance techniques to detect common measurement conditions produced by youth mental health assessments. Third, we review recent uses of measurement invariance techniques in youth mental health and highlight the implications of (mis)applying measurement invariance techniques to youth mental health assessments. Fourth, we present a case for placing a moratorium on applying measurement invariance techniques to detect the common measurement conditions described in this paper. In doing so, we describe how the state of the science would need to fundamentally “flip” to justify applying measurement invariance techniques to detect common measurement conditions produced by youth mental health assessments.
Understanding youth mental health requires multi-informant approaches to assessment
When considering how researchers use youth mental health assessments, one readily sees how social context factors into the domain-relevant information assessors obtain when using these assessments. This is because mental health domains are intimately connected to youths’ social environments. For instance, core and associated features of commonly diagnosed mental health conditions among youth tend to stem from how youth interact with their social environment. Examples of these features include fear and avoidance of unfamiliar social situations in social anxiety, inconsistent or harsh parenting in conduct disorder, maladaptive peer relations in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and exposure to acute life stressors in major depression (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Not all youth experience the same home environments, peer relations, school settings, and general life circumstances relevant to mental health functioning. In this respect, in youth mental health, “context” manifests as an individual differences variable, with considerable variation within and between youth undergoing evaluation. Two youth who experience ADHD may differ substantially in their clinical presentations. One youth’s symptoms may manifest largely at school, such as in peer-related difficulties and academic challenges, whereas another youth’s symptoms may manifest largely at home, due to inconsistent parenting, among other factors. In fact, context-relevant individual differences factor prominently in interventions designed to address youths’ mental health needs, for not only ADHD but all other domains for which youth receive mental health services.
Social context also factors into developing psychosocial interventions and interpreting their effects. These interventions consist of techniques (e.g., exposure, behavior modification, cognitive restructuring, social skills training) that require personalization, to “fit” the unique needs of clients and their social environments (see also Kazdin and Rotella, 2009; Weisz et al., 2012, 2015; Kazdin, 2013). In fact, we have long known that clients’ contexts vary, in part, because they each contain contingencies or factors that precipitate and/or maintain a client’s needs (see Skinner, 1953). To illustrate, the disciplinary methods parents use at home might differ from teachers’ methods at school, and social interactions youth encounter at school (e.g., teasing, bullying) might involve factors that elicit mental health concerns that are absent in other areas of a youth’s social environment (e.g., neighborhood near their home). In sum, context plays a key role in youth mental health research.
The importance of context necessitates leveraging context-sensitive modalities for measuring domains relevant to understanding youth mental health. The most common approach to collecting these context-sensitive data involves soliciting reports from multiple informants with expertise in observing youth in their naturalistic environment, notably in contexts like home and school (Hunsley and Mash, 2007). Within this multi-informant approach, researchers commonly collect reports from parents (i.e., to estimate behaviors displayed at home), teachers (i.e., to estimate behaviors displayed at school), and youth themselves (i.e., to estimate behaviors displayed across multiple contexts; see Kraemer et al., 2003; De Los Reyes and Makol, 2022a). Multi-informant assessments are commonplace in research about youth mental health services. For instance, users of the multi-informant approach apply it to index symptoms of mental health concerns (e.g., internalizing and externalizing domains; Achenbach, 2020) and associated features of these concerns (e.g., family functioning domains; De Los Reyes and Ohannessian, 2016), as well as psychosocial strengths (e.g., social skills; Gresham and Elliott, 2008; De Los Reyes et al., 2019a). By extension, the multi-informant approach features prominently in research germane to these domains. For example, data from multi-informant assessments largely comprise the foundation of estimates of intervention effects within the controlled trials literature (see Weisz et al., 2005), as well as the understanding of how domains of youth mental health concerns are related to one another (Achenbach, 2020), and associated features and risk factors of mental health concerns (De Los Reyes et al., 2015). Given the ubiquity of multi-informant assessment in youth mental health, researchers have long sought to understand the measurement conditions produced when leveraging this approach to assessment.
Measurement invariance: The wrong “sentence” for multi-informant data derived from youth mental health assessments
In this section, we review one application of measurement invariance techniques in youth mental health, and demonstrate how little justification youth mental health researchers have for applying measurement invariance techniques to detect common measurement conditions observed with data from multi-informant assessments. In particular, we focus on the most commonly observed measurement condition in youth mental health. In this area, researchers often observe large discrepancies between informants’ reports of measured domains (i.e., informant discrepancies). A teacher might report a relatively higher degree of mental health concerns (e.g., disruptive behavior) in a student in their class, relative to estimates from the student’s parent(s). Discrepancies also manifest between reports taken from teachers and youth, as well as between youth and their parents.
Youth mental health researchers began observing these informant discrepancies decades ago (e.g., Lapouse and Monk, 1958). Decades later, hundreds of studies document that youth mental health assessments commonly produce informant discrepancies. For example, in a meta-analysis of 119 studies published between 1960 and 1986, Achenbach and colleagues (1987) estimated that, on average, informants’ reports of youth mental health domains (i.e., internalizing and externalizing concerns) correspond at low-to-moderate magnitudes (i.e., mean r = 0.28; Cohen, 1988). Nearly 30 years later, a meta-analysis of 341 studies published between 1989 and 2014 detected the exact same mean correspondence estimate observed by Achenbach and colleagues (i.e., r = 0.28; De Los Reyes et al., 2015). Further, a more recent cross-cultural meta-analysis revealed that this low-to-moderate level of correspondence manifests in multi-informant assessments of youth mental health conducted globally, as demonstrated by studies conducted in over 30 countries and every inhabited continent (De Los Reyes et al., 2019b). Additional characteristics of the meta-analytic literature support the robust nature of informant discrepancies. Low-to-moderate magnitudes of between-informant correspondence manifest when assessing concerns on the autism spectrum (Stratis and Lecavalier, 2015), associated features of mental health concerns (e.g., parenting, peer relations; Hawker and Boulton, 2000; Korelitz and Garber, 2016), and assessments of psychosocial strengths (e.g., social competence; Renk and Phares, 2004). Informant discrepancies also play an important role in meta-analytic estimates of intervention effects. Specifically, meta-analyses of controlled trials of psychosocial interventions for youth mental health reveal that intervention effects range from small-to-large in magnitude (e.g., Cohen’s (1988)d ranging from 0.3 to 0.8+), depending on the type of informant completing the outcome measure (see Casey and Berman, 1985; Weisz et al., 1987, 1995, 2006, 2017; De Los Reyes and Kazdin, 2006, 2008).
Informant discrepancies also manifest within the delivery of services, such that informants vary considerably in not only what general needs require services (e.g., targeting anxiety vs. mood vs. ADHD), but also the specific goals these services ought to address (e.g., improving a youth’s social skills with peers, decreasing parental use of inconsistent disciplinary strategies at home; De Los Reyes et al., 2022a). In terms of basic research, these discrepancies have enormous implications for detecting associated features and risk factors of mental health concerns, given that detections of such links also depend on the types of informants completing the measures of both mental health concerns and associated features/risk factors (see Hawker and Boulton, 2000; Youngstrom et al., 2003; De Los Reyes and Kazdin, 2005). Taken together, issues surrounding the application of measurement invariance techniques to data from multi-informant assessments are of paramount importance to all aspects of youth mental health research, because the varied measurement conditions reflected by informant discrepancies comprise the defining characteristics of assessments in this area.
Conceptual foundations for interpreting informant discrepancies in youth mental health
If youth mental health assessments commonly produce informant discrepancies, then what might these discrepancies reflect? How clinicians and researchers go about multi-informant assessment has the “look and feel” of how journalists solicit sources for news stories. In an effort to gain a holistic understanding of a given topic, journalists don’t pick their sources at random. Rather, they strategically identify sources that reside at all corners or contours of the story topic. Youth mental health researchers similarly consult with informants who have expertise in observing youth in clinically relevant contexts. For instance, when researchers collect reports from teachers and parents, it is an acknowledgment that teachers have expertise in observing youth behavior within one set of social contexts and their constituent contingencies (i.e., school), whereas parents have expertise in observing behavior within an often fundamentally distinct set of contexts and contingencies (i.e., home). As noted in recent work on these issues (De Los Reyes et al., 2022a), the kinds of informants from whom youth mental health scholars collect reports are regarded as structurally different informants, or informants who systematically vary in the processes, through which they provide reports, and the processes bear some relevance to our understanding of the measured domain (see also Eid et al., 2008; Geiser et al., 2012; Konold and Cornell, 2015; Konold and Sanders, 2020).
As mentioned previously, the decision to apply measurement invariance techniques requires careful attention to theory and research on the varied conditions that one seeks to detect (e.g., respondent characteristics and informant discrepancies). Given the structurally different nature of multi-informant approaches to the assessment of youth mental health, it is perhaps ironic that, when it comes to theory, empirical attention dedicated to what informant discrepancies reflect stems from the following competing theories: (a) the depression-distortion hypothesis (Richters, 1992) and (b) situational specificity (Achenbach et al., 1987). The former theory makes the claim that informant discrepancies reflect systematic rater biases (i.e., a measurement confound), whereas the latter makes the claim that informant discrepancies reflect, in part, domain-relevant information (Figure 1). We require data to reconcile these competing theories, and determine the appropriateness of applying measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies.
FIGURE 1
The decision to apply measurement invariance techniques is a discrete decision (Figure 2A). Recall Millsap’s (2011) definition is as follows: When a user applies measurement invariance techniques to detect a varied measurement condition, such as informant discrepancies, they are required to treat the detection of that condition as synonymous with detecting a measurement confound. Thus, to apply measurement invariance techniques to detect a given set of varied measurement conditions, a user needs the available evidence to tilt considerably in favor of measurement confounds as an explanation for the presence of these varied conditions. The discrete decision to apply measurement invariance techniques is distinct from estimating the degree to which informant discrepancies reflect domain-relevant information (Figure 2B). All instrumentation likely contains some degree of imprecision in measurement. Thus, even if a given measurement of informant discrepancies largely reflects domain-relevant information, it likely also contains some variance reflected by measurement confounds. A justified use of measurement invariance techniques requires that the data tilt so far in favor of measurement confounds as an explanation of a measurement condition (e.g., informant discrepancies), that optimizing measurement validity necessitates use of measurement invariance techniques.
FIGURE 2
In recent work, De Los Reyes and Makol (2022b) described the methodological limitations of prior work on the depression-distortion hypothesis. Due to the space constraints imposed by this article type (i.e., Frontiers’ Conceptual Analysis), an extended discussion of these limitations in the context of the use of measurement invariance techniques in youth mental health is presented elsewhere (see Online Supplementary Material). This allows us to dedicate our attention to research informed by situational specificity, which we posit as being most closely aligned with the principles and practices of multi-informant assessments in youth mental health, namely, the use of structurally different informants to assess youth.
Briefly, the notion of situational specificity holds that if youth inherently display individual differences in their social environments (i.e., not all youth have identical home or school environments), then the contingencies that elicit mental health concerns also vary within and across youth. By logical extension, some youth may live in social environments, whereby contingencies that elicit their concerns manifest in one context to a greater degree than other contexts (e.g., school > home and vice versa). In contrast, other youth may live in social environments whereby contingencies that elicit their concerns manifest similarly across contexts (i.e., school = home), and still, other youth live in social environments typified by contingencies that contribute to relatively healthy functioning across contexts. Structurally different informants vary in their opportunities to observe how youth behave within contexts and contingencies relevant to their mental health. Thus, discrepancies between these informants’ reports reflect, in part, the degree to which youth mental health varies across contexts.
Situational specificity has important implications for understanding and interpreting multi-informant assessment outcomes. Figure 3 graphically depicts the dominant model used in youth mental health to interpret these assessment outcomes (i.e., the Operations Triad Model; De Los Reyes et al., 2013a). This model extends more traditional models for interpreting findings derived from multiple sources, namely, Converging Operations (Garner et al., 1956). In youth mental health, Converging Operations (Figure 3A) manifests when informants’ reports yield data that produce the same research findings (e.g., both reports support a youth client’s anxiety diagnosis, both reports support significant reductions in symptoms post-treatment). In fact, within Converging Operations anything less than converging findings reflects a measurement confound (e.g., random error, rater biases; Watts et al., 2022).
FIGURE 3
The meta-analytic work we described previously (e.g., Achenbach et al., 1987; De Los Reyes et al., 2015) indicates that in youth mental health research, Converging Operations rarely occur. This necessitates also conceptualizing informant discrepancies, and within the Operations Triad Model, not all informant discrepancies are created equally. To illustrate, informant discrepancies that reflect situationally specific manifestations of the measured domain represent Diverging Operations (Figure 3B), such that this form of informant discrepancy reflects domain-relevant information. In contrast, informant discrepancies that reflect measurement confounds harken back to Millsap’s (2011) operational definition of measurement invariance techniques, namely, varied measurement conditions that are irrelevant to the domains about which informants provide reports (e.g., random error and rater biases). These domain-irrelevant discrepancies represent Compensating Operations (Figure 3C).
In sum, multiple conceptual models facilitate use of multi-informant assessments and interpreting the nature of the informant discrepancies they often produce. Yet, it would be incorrect to assume that a given interpretation (e.g., that informant discrepancies reflect Diverging Operations) validly reflects informant discrepancies observed in any one youth mental health study. These conceptual models merely reflect a starting point when interpreting informant discrepancies. Indeed, these models ought to be falsifiable, such that they inform empirical tests of their veracity.
How validation testing facilitates detecting the domain-relevant information in informant discrepancies
A key strength of situational specificity lies in its falsifiability. If situational specificity did not provide a thorough account of informant discrepancies, then well-constructed studies of this theory should reveal non-significant links between informant discrepancies and measured indicators of phenomena relevant to understanding youth mental health. Falsifiability allows us to directly test the question: Do informant discrepancies contain data that inform our understanding of youth mental health? This question bears a striking similarity to the questions that drive work on the score validity of measurement instruments in psychology (see Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994; Hinkin, 1995; Garb, 2003; Hunsley and Mash, 2007; Kazdin, 2017). In this respect, psychometric tests of score validity (e.g., construct, incremental, and criterion-related validation procedures) exemplify an ideal “fit” for empirically scrutinizing the concepts underlying the Operations Triad Model and, by extension, situational specificity. If the Operations Triad Model holds that not all cases of informant discrepancies are created equally, then well-constructed validation tests ought to facilitate distinguishing those informant discrepancies that reflect Diverging Operations from those that reflect Compensating Operations. By construction, the domain-relevant information reflected by Diverging Operations is uncorrelated with the domain-irrelevant measurement confounds reflected by Compensating Operations. Taken together, validation testing helps rule out the possibility that Compensating Operations characterize all informant discrepancies.
Over the last 15 years, numerous studies from multiple investigative teams have revealed various instances in which informant discrepancies likely contain domain-relevant information. The key to these studies has been the use of domain-relevant indicators as criterion measures in validation studies, such as ratings of observed behavior made by trained raters, scores from performance-based tasks, and readings from physiological instruments (for reviews, see De Los Reyes and Aldao, 2015; De Los Reyes et al., 2015, 2020). These criterion measures demonstrate independence in modalities, relative to informants’ reports. This independence in modalities allows researchers to rule out the possibility that any relations between informants’ reports and criterion measures arose simply because of criterion contamination or rater-specific variance, whereby both informants’ reports and validation criteria relied on the same measurement modalities to estimate youth functioning (see Garb, 2003).
Consider some validation tests focused on interpreting informant discrepancies. Recent meta-analyses show that parent and teacher reports of preschool children’s disruptive behavior display low-to-moderate levels of correspondence (Carneiro et al., 2021). Prior studies also highlight that parent-teacher dyads display considerable heterogeneity in patterns of reporting across developmental periods, as some dyads disagree in their reports, whereas other dyads agree (see Fergusson et al., 2009; Lerner et al., 2017; Sulik et al., 2017; Makol et al., 2021). In line with the notion of situational specificity, De Los Reyes et al. (2009) compared patterns of parent and teacher reports of disruptive behavior against independent assessments of children’s actual behavior (i.e., using the Disruptive Behavior Diagnostic Observation Schedule; Wakschlag et al., 2010). They found that when a teacher endorsed disruptive behavior that the parent did not (and vice versa), it signaled context-specific displays in actual behavior. De Los Reyes et al. (2009) leveraged validation testing to rule out the possibility that Compensating Operations explained all patterns of informant discrepancies observed in the sample of parent and teacher reports they examined. This is because informant discrepancies contained domain-relevant information, in the form of data pointing to the specific contexts in which children displayed disruptive behavior.
Other evidence supports the Diverging Operations interpretation of informant discrepancies within the context of predictive validity, such as the prediction of youth mental health outcomes. For example, in a sample of adolescents receiving an intake assessment for internalizing concerns within an acute care setting, Makol et al. (2019) discovered the same structure of parent-adolescent reporting patterns described previously with parent-teacher patterns, with some dyads disagreeing in their reports of internalizing concerns, whereas other dyads agreeing. Patterns of parent-adolescent agreement and disagreement observed at the intake assessment predicted key treatment characteristics during adolescents’ stays in acute care. Notably, adolescents, for whom parents reported relatively high internalizing concerns that were not corroborated by the self-reports of the adolescents, were at particularly high risk of being administered intensive treatment regimens, including standing antipsychotics and locked-door seclusion. These findings accord with work demonstrating that informant discrepancies predict other domain-relevant criteria, including treatment outcomes for youth anxiety (Becker-Haimes et al., 2018; Zilcha-Mano et al., 2021), treatment outcomes for youth trauma (Humphreys et al., 2017), pulmonary function in pediatric asthma assessments (Al Ghriwati et al., 2018), history of mental health service use (Makol and Polo, 2018), observed behavior within school- and home-based tasks (De Los Reyes et al., 2022b), and a host of youth psychosocial outcomes both concurrently and longitudinally in studies of community samples (e.g., internalizing/externalizing concerns, substance use, and risky sexual behaviors; Laird and De Los Reyes, 2013; Lippold et al., 2013, 2014; Ohannessian and De Los Reyes, 2014; Human et al., 2016; Laird and LaFleur, 2016; Nelemans et al., 2016).
In light of the evidence (for more extensive reviews, see De Los Reyes et al., 2019a,b, 2020, 2022a; De Los Reyes and Makol, 2022a,b), one key notion warrants comment. As noted in Figure 2B, none of the evidence rules out the possibility that at least some informant discrepancies reflect measurement confounds, like rater biases. However, the key decision point here—Whether or not to apply measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments—is not a “Figure 2B” decision, but rather a “Figure 2A” decision. Regarding the decision point on whether to use measurement invariance techniques, the balance of theory and evidence tilts more toward informant discrepancies reflecting domain-relevant information rather than measurement confounds. The state of the science on these issues should be appreciated in much the same way as interpreting the evidence when carrying out any other kind of clinical or research activity. The evidence-based intervention literature would guide selecting an intervention for use in clinical work or research that has evidence of its potential utility in addressing clients’ needs, over an intervention with no such evidentiary support (see also Chambless and Ollendick, 2001; Kazdin, 2017; Weisz et al., 2017). The evidence-based assessment literature follows similar principles (see Hunsley and Mash, 2007). In the case of informant discrepancies in youth mental health research, both theory and the preponderance of the evidence points to a greater likelihood that any given instance of informant discrepancies reflects domain-relevant information vs. measurement confounds. This means that youth mental health researchers retain greater levels of measurement validity in scores taken from multi-informant assessment data if they refrain from applying measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies.
How the domain-relevant information in informant discrepancies disqualifies “sentencing” these discrepancies to tests of measurement invariance
To truly understand how the state of the science on informant discrepancies disqualifies one from applying measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments, it might be useful to think of the science as evidentiary exhibits in a legal proceeding. In Table 1, we frame the state of the science in just this way. When deciding on the verdict of a civil matter in the courts of common law countries, judges instruct juries to consider the preponderance of the evidence in favor of one of two opposing sides (i.e., plaintiff vs. defendant; Demougin and Fluet, 2006). Where does the majority of the evidence lie: On the side of the plaintiff or defendant? As with civil cases, here we have two opposing sides (i.e., competing theories; see Figure 1), and, thus, the question is as follows:
TABLE 1
| Exhibit | Description | Citation support |
| A | The notion of situational specificity | Achenbach et al., 1987 |
| B | Youth mental health researchers rely on reports completed by structurally different informants | Kraemer et al., 2003; Eid et al., 2008; De Los Reyes and Makol, 2022a |
| C | Structurally different informants tend to complete parallel instruments that hold crucial measurement properties constant (e.g., item content, scaling, response options), thus reducing the likelihood that random error variance explains informant discrepancies | Hunsley and Mash, 2007 |
| D | Several decades of research consistently point to large discrepancies between structurally different informants’ reports | De Los Reyes et al., 2015 |
| E | Multi-informant assessments conducted across the globe consistently reveal discrepancies between structurally different informants’ reports | De Los Reyes et al., 2019b |
| F | Researchers observe discrepancies between structurally different informants’ reports, regardless of the instruments used to collect these reports and how well-established they might be | Achenbach and Rescorla, 2001; Gresham and Elliott, 2008 |
| G | The best, most high-quality studies available to understand what informant discrepancies might reflect tend to show that these discrepancies reflect domain-relevant factors | De Los Reyes et al., 2022a |
| H | In tests of criterion-related validity that use independent assessments as criterion variables (i.e., observed behavior), approaches that meaningfully integrate data from structurally different informants’ reports outperform approaches that assume informant discrepancies reflect measurement confounds | Makol et al., 2020, 2021; De Los Reyes et al., 2022b |
| I | Any evidence of links between rater characteristics and informant discrepancies can be parsimoniously explained by domain-relevant factors | De Los Reyes and Makol, 2022b |
| J | Informant discrepancies tend not to be moderated by demographic characteristics of the youth being rated | Achenbach et al., 1987; De Los Reyes et al., 2015, 2019b |
Pieces of evidence (i.e., exhibits) that point toward informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments as cases of domain-relevant information.
Does the preponderance of the evidence point to informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments reflecting domain-relevant information or measurement confounds?
As seen in the exhibits presented in Table 1, the case here is, as lawyers often say, “open and shut.” Several of the exhibits presented in Table 1 (i.e., Exhibits A, B, D, E, and G), all of which were discussed in detail above, support the notion that informant discrepancies are more likely to contain domain-relevant information than be completely explained by measurement confounds.
Recent examples of measurement invariance studies
The utility of framing the science on informant discrepancies as evidentiary exhibits in a legal proceeding is exemplified by another key component of case law, namely precedent (Schauer, 1987). In legal circles, precedent compels stakeholders within the proceeding to make decisions that are informed by verdicts rendered in previous cases. Our task here does not involve judging the merits of a legal case; yet, like precedent in legal proceedings, the operational definition of measurement invariance techniques advanced by Millsap (2011) ought to compel researchers to base their decisions on whether to use these techniques with strict adherence to prior theory and evidence.
Along these lines, Table 2 illustrates this phenomenon as it relates to prior measurement invariance studies. In Table 2, we list 12 recent measurement invariance studies. In the notes of Table 2, we provide a list of nearly 40 publications relevant to the aims and scope of the 12 studies listed in the table. For each of the 12 studies, we link, from among the list of nearly 40 publications, prior work that preceded the publication of each of the 12 studies by at least one calendar year. In each of these cases, one can find at least two publications that, at minimum, provided theoretical or empirical justification for the authors refraining from applying measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies in the multi-informant data used to address their study aims. Stated another way, whatever compelling evidence was available in the literature at the time the authors of each of these studies published their work, the case where available evidence was made pointed toward informant discrepancies reflecting domain-relevant information. This evidence should have compelled the authors to refrain from applying measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies in their data.
TABLE 2
Examples of measurement invariance studies focused on informant discrepancies in assessments of domains relevant to understanding youth mental health.
aCitations note publications that pre-dated the publication year of the article, and that served as precedents to guide researchers toward refraining from applying measurement invariance techniques to study informant discrepancies.
Implications for research and theory
The measurement invariance oath
As yet, we have withheld discussion of a key element of measurement invariance studies—justification for use of measurement invariance techniques to address study aims. Measurement invariance studies about informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments, such as those listed in Table 2, typically provide justifications for using measurement invariance techniques in the introduction sections of the papers reporting study findings. Still, the justifications researchers have often used (a) reflect a misunderstanding of the operational definition of measurement invariance (i.e., to detect domain-irrelevant measurement conditions; Meredith, 1993; Osterlind and Everson, 2009; Millsap, 2011) and (b) omit discussions of crucial evidence that would lean against the use of these techniques. Current standards for allowable justifications are insufficient because they allow authors to commit errors of commission and omission when considering the literature.
The central thesis of our paper is that youth mental health researchers need a new standard for applying measurement invariance techniques and, more importantly, a standard for refraining from applying these techniques. The standard we propose draws from two sources. The first pertains to a key element of Millsap’s (2011) definition of measurement invariance techniques, namely, applying these techniques only when theory and evidence deem a specific set of varied measurement conditions (e.g., as those indicated by discrepancies between informants’ reports of youth mental health) as irrelevant to measured domains. The second draws from seminal work by Lilienfeld (2007) on using evidence to detect psychosocial interventions that might result in harmful effects. As justification for identifying such interventions, Lilienfeld called attention to a core element of The Hippocratic Oath, namely, to first, do no harm. In particular, Lilienfeld applied this oath to understanding intervention effects in psychology, and to set a clear “low bar” for detecting interventions that might result in harm to the clients who receive them.
Assessment is the “evidence” in evidence-based interventions. Whatever standard we place on the quality of interventions we must also place on the quality of the evidence used to estimate intervention effects. As mentioned previously, multi-informant assessments comprise foundational pieces of evidence for many evidence-based interventions (see Weisz et al., 2005). If use of measurement invariance techniques potentially produces harmful effects when applied to data conditions that violate assumptions underlying their use (e.g., depress measurement validity, decrease the accuracy of clinical decision-making), then we must exhibit heightened sensitivity to using them.
Consequently, we advance a notion that is a “mashup” of sorts between the thinking of Millsap (2011) and Lilienfeld (2007)−The Measurement Invariance Oath: First, do no harm to measurement validity. By setting this low bar for refraining from use of measurement invariance techniques, the onus is put on the user of these techniques to provide strong evidence in support of their use but, also, evidence in support of the specific circumstances characterizing the intended use. Indeed, to do otherwise could have untoward effects on clinical decision-making. Consider a case in which a user applied measurement invariance techniques to a set of multi-informant assessments, for which the informant discrepancies they produce reflect domain-relevant information. In particular, consider the clinical implications of using these techniques to, for instance, remove items that exhibited differential functioning across informants. If the reason for this differential item functioning is domain-relevant (e.g., they index contextual variability in the behaviors being assessed), then clinicians that subsequently use these same assessments would be ill-equipped to detect the very kinds of context-specific displays of clinically relevant behaviors that necessitate use of multi-informant assessments (i.e., situational specificity). Losing this valuable feature of multi-informant assessments may have downstream effects on all elements of service delivery that are informed by these assessments (e.g., diagnosis, treatment planning, outcome assessments; see also De Los Reyes et al., 2022a).
How the theory and evidence need to tilt to justify the use of measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments
With the preponderance of the evidence pointing away from informant discrepancies reflecting measurement confounds in youth mental health assessments (Table 1), the use of measurement invariance techniques ought to require extraordinary evidence. This raises the question: What kind of extraordinary evidence would justify the use of measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments? To address this question, we must highlight two ironies of work on informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments.
The first irony is that the depression-distortion hypothesis has driven much of the work on what informant discrepancies reflect (see Richters, 1992; De Los Reyes and Kazdin, 2005; De Los Reyes and Makol, 2022b). Consider the nature of such a scholarly process. Most studies testing what informant discrepancies reflect have focused on the degree to which multi-informant assessments are “plagued” by rater biases, driven in large part by the observation of informant discrepancies. Yet, at the core of constructing multi-informant procedures is the notion that each informant’s report contributes useful information. A key “signal” of such utility would presumably be each informant’s report yielding data that other informants’ reports do not yield (see also De Los Reyes et al., 2015). In essence, this focus on rater biases took an observation (i.e., informant discrepancies) that should have been tested as a psychometric property of multi-informant assessments, and, instead, treated it as an inherent flaw. This process is akin to developing a depression instrument, and then, using the formative studies to focus on how “bad” the instrument is at assessing depression, as opposed to whether the scores it produced yield accurate estimates of depression. The second irony is that research on the depression-distortion hypothesis led informant discrepancies to work down the path we find ourselves, one for which youth mental health researchers currently have no justification for being on (i.e., applying analytic procedures to multi-informant assessments of youth mental health that equate informant discrepancies with rater biases).
We opened this section with a question about the kind of evidence required to justify the use of measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments. The answer to this question is that the state of the science would need to fundamentally “flip” to provide such a justification. We noted that Table 1 shows the current state of theory and evidence in this area of work points to informant discrepancies containing domain-relevant information. In Figure 4A, we graphically depict the state of the science, such that it tilts away from where the science would need to be to justify the use of measurement invariance techniques (i.e., toward measurement confounds).
FIGURE 4
For researchers to reach a justification for using measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies, they would have to do two things. First, they would have to detect as-of-yet undiscovered flaws in the body of theory and evidence reviewed in this paper relevant to the notion of situational specificity—flaws that render work testing the domain-relevant information contained in informant discrepancies as uninterpretable. Second, they would have to conduct studies testing for the presence of rater biases in informant discrepancies that correct for the limitations we noted in prior work on the depression-distortion hypothesis (see Online Supplementary Material). Future work on the depression-distortion hypothesis would have to contend with the reality that the proposed source of measurement confounds in this theory (i.e., informants’ levels of depression) contain, at minimum, a “mix” of domain-relevant variance and variance reflecting measurement confounds (see also Watts et al., 2022). However, all rater bias studies, to date, have made no attempt to deconstruct the variance in the purported source of rater biases (e.g., parent’s levels of depressive symptoms) into domain-relevant and domain-irrelevant components. In absence of this deconstruction, it is reasonable to assume that all prior work purporting to demonstrate a link between informants’ mood with mood-related rater biases might simply be reifying an effect that is already widely known in the literature, namely, that parents’ functioning is intimately connected to youth functioning (see Goodman and Gotlib, 1999).
Procedures for addressing informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments
To the degree that the primary goal of techniques like measurement invariance is to optimize measurement validity (i.e., by accounting for a variance that reflects measurement confounds), it is important to understand how the use of these techniques attempts to achieve that goal. Measurement invariance techniques equate sources of unique variance like informant discrepancies with the presence of measurement confounds. It logically follows that measurement invariance techniques emphasize common variance, namely, a focus on detecting variables (e.g., items on multi-informant surveys) that function invariantly across informants’ reports. Measurement invariance techniques are not alone in emphasizing common variance. The majority of analytic techniques currently used by researchers seeking to integrate or model multi-informant data in youth mental health emphasize common variance and treat unique variance as error, including composite scores (e.g., Martel et al., 2021), many applications of structural equations modeling (e.g., Eid et al., 2008; Bauer et al., 2013; Howe et al., 2019; Watts et al., 2022), and combinational algorithms (e.g., AND rule; Baumgartner et al., 2021).
In many respects, the theory and evidence reviewed in this paper apply generally to any analytic technique, for which an assumption underlying its use is that the only variance worth considering is common variance. When the data conditions violate this assumption (see Table 1 and Figure 4A), the use of such a technique will logically result in depressing measurement validity and, by extension, reducing statistical power to test hypotheses of interest (see also Markon et al., 2011).
Taken together, we see a need for a reimagining of how youth mental health researchers integrate multi-informant data. In particular, researchers who take multi-informant approaches to assess youth mental health must leverage integrative techniques that retain both common variance and domain-relevant unique variance. Although such techniques are in short supply; some exist and with documented support of their validity when applied to multi-informant data in youth mental health research (see Tables 1, 2).
For instance, when applied to multi-informant data (e.g., Lerner et al., 2017; Makol et al., 2019), person-centered models, such as latent class analysis (Bartholomew et al., 2002) allow for the detection of instances in which informants’ reports yield similar findings (i.e., Converging Operations; Figure 3A) and domain-relevant discrepant findings (i.e., Diverging Operations; Figure 3B), particularly when these patterns of findings can be examined in relation to domain-relevant criterion variables (e.g., observed behavior; for a review, see De Los Reyes et al., 2019a). Similarly, when examined as predictors of youth outcomes, polynomial regression (Edwards, 1994) allows for detecting variance explained by each informant’s report, as well as their interaction (i.e., patterns of agreement and disagreement between informants’ reports), in the prediction of domain-relevant criterion variables (for reviews, see De Los Reyes and Ohannessian, 2016; Laird, 2020). A third example of techniques that retain both common variance and domain-relevant unique variance can be found in factor-analytic work by Kraemer et al. (2003), who developed a form of principal components analysis that synthesizes multi-informant data into a common variance component and domain-relevant, unique variance components. A recent study indicates that this approach predicts independent assessments of observed behavior well above the predictive power of not only individual informants’ reports but also the average of reports (i.e., a composite score of reports; Makol et al., 2020) and sophisticated structural models that emphasize common variance (Makol, 2021). We encourage future work seeking to extend the portfolio of available integrative techniques that allow for considerations of common variance and domain-relevant unique variance, beyond those we briefly discussed.
A call for a moratorium on using measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments
To close this paper, we return to what we previously referred to as our “north star,” the operational definition of measurement invariance techniques advanced by Millsap (2011):
“Measurement invariance is built on the notion that a measuring device should function the same way across varied conditions, so long as those varied conditions are irrelevant to the attribute being measured.”
To arrive at a justification for using measurement invariance techniques, one must be justified in treating the detection of a varied condition (i.e., informant discrepancies) as synonymous with detecting a measurement confound (e.g., rater biases). Such a justification requires strict adherence to both theory and evidence. We demonstrated that in youth mental health research, there are competing theories regarding what informant discrepancies reflect (Figure 1). This necessitates the use of data to “settle the score” as to these competing theories (Figure 2). This also raises the possibility that theory and evidence will indicate that one should avoid the use of measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies (Figure 4A). However, at least one other implication of the definition bears emphasizing—the goal of using measurement invariance techniques. The goal of using measurement invariance techniques should be laser-focused on optimizing the psychometric rigor of scores taken from measurement instruments, namely, efforts that result in tangible, significant improvements to measurement validity. If the state of the science is not tilted toward equating informant discrepancies with the presence of measurement confounds (i.e., Figure 4B), the implication is clear: One optimizes measurement validity by avoiding the use of measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies.
Another element of the operational definition advanced by Millsap (2011) is that one requires real evidence to justify the use of measurement invariance techniques. In youth mental health research, the evidence overwhelmingly points away from informant discrepancies reflecting the kinds of measurement confounds that would justify the use of measurement invariance techniques. Rather, this evidence points toward the notion that informant discrepancies likely contain significant sources of domain-relevant information, data that directly pertain to the very youth mental health domains about which informants provide reports (Table 1). One cannot conduct a measurement invariance study in youth mental health research if they properly attend to this evidence, although many recent studies did not consider this wealth of prior evidence (Table 2).
Along these lines, might the issues raised in this paper apply to other measurement conditions in youth mental health? As previously mentioned, when interpreting the outcomes of performance evaluations used to admit students to educational programs, if variations among respondents manifest as a result of their demographic characteristics−and these variations reflect measurement confounds−then measurement invariance techniques become powerful tools for equating item content across respondents and thus improving measurement validity (e.g., Meredith, 1993; Millsap, 2011; Osterlind and Everson, 2009). Yet, in youth mental health these same demographic characteristics play important roles in explaining, for instance, the emergence of depressive symptoms in adolescence (e.g., Hankin and Abramson, 1999), disparities in access to mental health services (e.g., Barnett et al., 2021), and structural factors implicated in discrimination (e.g., Fish, 2020; Anderson et al., 2022). Under these circumstances, might users of measurement invariance techniques depress measurement validity when they seek to equate item content across measurement conditions (i.e., youth demographic characteristics) that distinguish youth for domain-relevant reasons? This question merits additional study.
In summation, the case against the use of measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments cannot be clearer. This is an “open and shut” case (Table 1 and Figure 4A). To open this case again requires the state of the science to fundamentally “flip,” and clearly reveal that the overwhelming majority of unique variance (i.e., as reflected by informant discrepancies) produced by multi-informant assessments of youth mental health reflects measurement confounds (Figure 4B). In essence, the state of the science would need to reveal that, for decades, youth mental health researchers have been wrong to leverage data from structurally different informants, because these multi-informant assessments produce informant discrepancies that clearly do not achieve their intended purpose−to yield context-sensitive data about youth mental health. Until the state of the science “flips” in this way, it logically follows that scholars in youth mental health implement a moratorium on the use of measurement invariance techniques for the specific purpose of detecting informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments. To do otherwise−to allow these techniques to continue to be applied to detect informant discrepancies−would invite empirical efforts that risk depressing the measurement validity of scores taken from instruments designed to estimate youth mental health concerns. Factors that depress measurement validity have clear, negative influences on statistical power (Markon et al., 2011), and levels of statistical power play a key role in the degree to which findings replicate across studies (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). We already have enough factors influencing “replication crises” in psychology (see Tackett et al., 2017). As a scholarly community, let us ensure that improper applications of measurement invariance techniques do not add more fuel to existing crises in confidence in psychological research findings.
Statements
Author contributions
AD conceptualized the problem, wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and edited the manuscript. FT, AW, and GA edited the manuscript. All authors approved the manuscript and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Funding
Efforts by the AD were supported by grants from the Fulbright United States Scholars Program (Fulbright Canada Research Chair in Mental Health) and the Institute of Education Sciences (R324A180032; Principal Investigator: AD; Co-Principal Investigators: Cook and Gresham). Efforts by the AW were supported by grants from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (K99AA028306; Principal Investigator: AW).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.931296/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AchenbachT. M. (2020). Bottom-up and top-down paradigms for psychopathology: a half century odyssey.Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol.161–24. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071119-115831
2
AchenbachT. M.McConaughyS. H.HowellC. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity.Psychol. Bull.101213–232. 10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213
3
AchenbachT. M.RescorlaL. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles.Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.
4
Al GhriwatiN.WinterM. A.GreenleeJ. L.ThompsonE. L. (2018). Discrepancies between parent and self-reports of adolescent psychosocial symptoms: associations with family conflict and asthma outcomes.J. Fam. Psychol.32992–997. 10.1037/fam0000459
5
AlvarezI.HerreroM.Martínez-PampliegaA.EscuderoV. (2020). Measuring perceptions of the therapeutic alliance in individual, family, and group therapy from a systemic perspective: structural validity of the SOFTA-s.Fam. Process60302–315. 10.1111/famp.12565
6
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edn. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
7
AndersonR. E.Heard-GarrisN.DeLappR. C. (2022). Future directions for vaccinating children against the American endemic: treating racism as a virus. J. Clin. Child Adol. Psychol. 51, 127–142. 10.1080/15374416.2021.1969940
8
BarnettM. L.Luis SanchezB. E.Green RosasY.Broder-FingertS. (2021). Future directions in lay health worker involvement in children’s mental health services in the US. J. Clin. Child Adol. Psychol.50, 966–978. 10.1080/15374416.2021.1969655
9
BartholomewD. J.SteeleF.MoustakiI.GalbraithJ. I. (2002). The Analysis and Interpretation of Multivariate Data for Social Scientists.London: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
10
BauerD. J.HowardA. L.BaldasaroR. E.CurranP. J.HussongA. M.ChassinL.et al (2013). A trifactor model for integrating ratings across multiple informants.Psychol. Methods18475–493. 10.1037/a0032475
11
BaumgartnerN.FosterS.EmeryS.BergerG.WalitzaS.HäberlingI. (2021). How are discrepant parent–child reports integrated? A case of depressed adolescents.J. Child Adolesc. Psychopharmacol.31279–287. 10.1089/cap.2020.0116
12
Becker-HaimesE. M.Jensen-DossA.BirmaherB.KendallP. C.GinsburgG. S. (2018). Parent–youth informant disagreement: implications for youth anxiety treatment.Clin. Child Psychol. Psychiatry2342–56. 10.1177/1359104516689586
13
CarneiroA.SoaresI.RescorlaL.DiasP. (2021). Meta-analysis on parent–teacher agreement on preschoolers’ emotional and behavioural Problems.Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev.52609–618. 10.1007/s10578-020-01044-y
14
CaseyR. J.BermanJ. S. (1985). The outcomes of psychotherapy with children.Psychol. Bull.98388–400. 10.1111/1469-7610.00159
15
ChamblessD. L.OllendickT. H. (2001). Empirically supported psychological interventions: controversies and evidence.Annu. Rev. Psychol.52685–716. 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.685
16
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17
Council of National Psychological Associations for the Advancement of Ethnic Minority Interests [CNPAAEMI] (2016). Testing and Assessment with Persons & Communities of Color.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
18
CurranP. J.GeorgesonA. R.BauerD. J.HussongA. M. (2021). Psychometric models for scoring multiple reporter assessments: applications to integrative data analysis in prevention science and beyond.Int. J. Behav. Dev.4540–50. 10.1177/0165025419896620
19
De Los ReyesA. (2011). More than measurement error: discovering meaning behind informant discrepancies in clinical assessments of children and adolescents.J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol.401–9. 10.1080/15374416.2011.533405
20
De Los ReyesA.AldaoA. (2015). Introduction to the special issue: toward implementing physiological measures in clinical child and adolescent assessments.J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol.44221–237. 10.1080/15374416.2014.891227
21
De Los ReyesA.AugensteinT. M.WangM.ThomasS. A.DrabickD. A. G.BurgersD.et al (2015). The validity of the multi-informant approach to assessing child and adolescent mental health.Psychol. Bull.141858–900. 10.1037/a0038498
22
De Los ReyesA.CookC. R.GreshamF. M.MakolB. A.WangM. (2019a). Informant discrepancies in assessments of psychosocial functioning in school-based services and research: review and directions for future research.J. Sch. Psychol.7474–89. 10.1016/j.jsp.2019.05.005
23
De Los ReyesA.LernerM. D.KeeleyL. M.WeberR.DrabickD. A. G.RabinowitzJ.et al (2019b). Improving interpretability of subjective assessments about psychological phenomena: a review and cross-cultural meta-analysis.Rev. Gen. Psychol.23293–319. 10.1177/108926801983764
24
De Los ReyesA.OhannessianC. M.RaczS. J. (2019c). Discrepancies between adolescent and parent reports about family relationships.Child Dev. Perspect.1353–58. 10.1111/cdep.12306
25
De Los ReyesA.MakolB. A.RaczS. J.YoungstromE. A.LernerM. D.KeeleyL. M. (2019d). The work and social adjustment scale for youth: a measure for assessing youth psychosocial impairment regardless of mental health status.J. Child Fam. Stud.281–16. 10.1007/s10826-018-1238-6
26
De Los ReyesA.DrabickD. A. G.MakolB. A.JakubovicR. (2020). Introduction to the special section: the Research Domain Criteria’s units of analysis and cross-unit correspondence in youth mental health research.J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol.49279–296. 10.1080/15374416.2020.1738238
27
De Los ReyesA.HenryD. B.TolanP. H.WakschlagL. S. (2009). Linking informant discrepancies to observed variations in young children’s disruptive behavior.J. Abnorm. Child Psychol.37637–652. 10.1007/s10802-009-9307-3
28
De Los ReyesA.KazdinA. E. (2005). Informant discrepancies in the assessment of childhood psychopathology: a critical review, theoretical framework, and recommendations for further study.Psychol. Bull.131483–509. 10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.483
29
De Los ReyesA.KazdinA. E. (2006). Conceptualizing changes in behavior in intervention research: the range of possible changes model.Psychol. Rev.113554–583. 10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.554
30
De Los ReyesA.KazdinA. E. (2008). When the evidence says, “Yes, no, and maybe so”: attending to and interpreting inconsistent findings among evidence-based interventions.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.1747–51. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00546.x
31
De Los ReyesA.MakolB. A. (2022a). “Interpreting convergences and divergences in multi- informant, multi-method assessment,” in The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Psychopathology Assessment, 2nd Edn, ed.MihuraJ. (Oxford: Oxford). 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190092689.013.33
32
De Los ReyesA.MakolB. A. (2022b). “Informant reports in clinical assessment,” in Comprehensive Clinical Psychology, 2nd Edn, ed.AsmundsonG. (Oxford: Elsevier). 10.1016/B978-0-12-818697-8.00113-8
33
De Los ReyesA.OhannessianC. M. (2016). Introduction to the special issue: discrepancies in adolescent-parent perceptions of the family and adolescent adjustment.J. Youth Adolesc.451957–1972. 10.1007/s10964-016-0533-z
34
De Los ReyesA.TalbottE.PowerT.MichelJ.CookC. R.RaczS. J.et al (2022a). The Needs-to-Goals Gap: how informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments impact service delivery.Clin. Psychol. Rev.92:102114. 10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102114
35
De Los ReyesA.CookC. R.SullivanM.MorrellN.HamlinC.WangM.et al (2022b). The Work and Social Adjustment Scale for Youth: psychometric properties of the teacher version and evidence of contextual variability in psychosocial impairments.Psychol. Assess.[Epub ahead of print]. 10.1037/pas0001139
36
De Los ReyesA.ThomasS. A.GoodmanK. L.KundeyS. M. A. (2013a). Principles underlying the use of multiple informants’ reports.Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol.9123–149. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185617
37
De Los ReyesA.BunnellB. E.BeidelD. C. (2013b). Informant discrepancies in adult social anxiety disorder assessments: links with contextual variations in observed behavior.J. Abnorm. Psychol.122376–386. 10.1037/a0031150
38
De Los ReyesA.LernerM. D.ThomasS. A.DaruwalaS. E.GoepelK. A. (2013c). Discrepancies between parent and adolescent beliefs about daily life topics and performance on an emotion recognition task.J. Abnorm. Child Psychol.41971–982. 10.1007/s10802-013-9733-0
39
De Los ReyesA.SalasS.MenzerM. M.DaruwalaS. E. (2013d). Criterion validity of interpreting scores from multi-informant statistical interactions as measures of informant discrepancies in psychological assessments of children and adolescents.Psychol. Assess.25509–519. 10.1037/a0032081
40
DemouginD.FluetC. (2006). Preponderance of evidence.Eur. Econ. Rev.50963–976. 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2004.11.002
41
DerosD. E.RaczS. J.LiptonM. F.AugensteinT. M.KarpJ. N.KeeleyL. M.et al (2018). Multi-informant assessments of adolescent social anxiety: adding clarity by leveraging reports from unfamiliar peer confederates.Behav. Ther.4984–98. 10.1016/j.beth.2017.05.001
42
DirksM. A.De Los ReyesA.Briggs-GowanM.CellaD.WakschlagL. S. (2012). Annual Research Review: embracing not erasing contextual variability in children’s behavior-theory and utility in the selection and use of methods and informants in developmental psychopathology.J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry53558–574. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02537.x
43
EdwardsJ. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: critique and a proposed alternative.Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.5851–100. 10.1006/obhd.1994.1029
44
EidM.NussbeckF. W.GeiserC.ColeD. A.GollwitzerM.LischetzkeT. (2008). Structural equation modeling of multitrait-multimethod data: different models for different types of methods.Psychol. Methods13230–253. 10.1037/a0013219
45
FergussonD. M.BodenJ. M.HorwoodL. J. (2009). Situational and generalised conduct problems and later life outcomes: evidence from a New Zealand birth cohort.J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry501084–1092. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02070.x
46
FishJ. N. (2020). Future directions in understanding and addressing mental health among LGBTQ youth. J. Clin. Child Adol. Psychol. 49, 943–956. 10.1080/15374416.2020.1815207
47
FjermestadK. W.LernerM. D.McLeodB. D.WergelandG. J. H.HeiervangE. R.SilvermanW. K.et al (2016). Therapist- youth agreement on alliance change predicts long-term outcome in CBT for anxiety disorders.J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry57625–632. 10.1111/jcpp.12485
48
FloreanI. S.DobreanA.BalazsiR.RoşanA.PăsăreluC. R.PredescuE.et al (2022). Measurement invariance of Alabama Parenting Questionnaire Across age, gender, clinical status, and informant.Assessment.[Epub ahead of print]. 10.1177/10731911211068178
49
GarbH. N. (2003). Incremental validity and the assessment of psychopathology in adults.Psychol. Assess.15508–520. 10.1037/1040-3590.15.4.508
50
GarnerW. R.HakeH. W.EriksenC. W. (1956). Operationism and the concept of perception.Psychol. Rev.63149–159. 10.1037/h0042992
51
GeiserC.EidM.WestS. G.LischetzkeT.NussbeckF. W. (2012). A comparison of method effects in two confirmatory factor models for structurally different methods.Struct. Equ. Model.19409–436. 10.1080/10705511.2012.687658
52
GlennL. E.KeeleyL. M.SzollosS.OkunoH.WangX.RauschE.et al (2019). Trained observers’ ratings of adolescents’ social anxiety and social skills within controlled, cross-contextual social interactions with unfamiliar peer confederates.J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess.411–15. 10.1007/s10862-018-9676-4
53
GoodmanS. H.GotlibI. H. (1999). Risk for psychopathology in the children of depressed mothers: a developmental model for understanding mechanisms of transmission.Psychol. Rev.106458–490.
54
GreshamF. M.ElliottS. N. (2008). Social Skills Improvement System—Rating Scales.Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.
55
HankinB. L.AbramsonL. Y. (1999). Development of gender differences in depression: description and possible explanations. Ann. Med. 31, 372–379. 10.3109/07853899908998794
56
HartleyA. G.ZakriskiA. L.WrightJ. C. (2011). Probing the depths of informant discrepancies: contextual influences on divergence and convergence.J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol.4054–66. 10.1080/15374416.2011.533404
57
HawkerD. S.BoultonM. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: a meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies.J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Allied Discip.41441–455.
58
HinkinT. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations.J. Manage.21967–988.
59
HoweG. W.DagneG. A.BrownC. H.BrincksA. M.BeardsleeW.PerrinoT.et al (2019). Evaluating construct equivalence of youth depression measures across multiple measures and multiple studies.Psychol. Assess.311154–1167. 10.1037/pas0000737
60
HumanL. J.DirksM. A.DeLongisA.ChenE. (2016). Congruence and incongruence in adolescents’ and parents’ perceptions of the family: using response surface analysis to examine links with adolescents’ psychological adjustment.J. Youth Adolesc.452022–2035. 10.1007/s10964-016-0517-z
61
HumphreysK. L.WeemsC. F.ScheeringaM. S. (2017). The role of anxiety control and treatment implications of informant agreement on child PTSD symptoms.J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol.46903–914. 10.1080/15374416.2015.1094739
62
HunsleyJ.MashE. J. (2007). Evidence-based assessment.Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol.329–51. 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091419
63
HydeJ. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences.Annu. Rev. Psychol.65373–398. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057
64
JourilesE. N.ThompsonS. M. (1993). Effects of mood on mothers’ evaluations of children’s behavior.J. Fam. Psychol.6300–307.
65
KazdinA. E. (2013). Behavior Modification in Applied Settings, 7th Edn. Long Grave, IL: Waveland Press.
66
KazdinA. E. (2017). Research Design in Clinical Psychology, 5th Edn. New York, NY: Pearson.
67
KazdinA. E.RotellaC. (2009). The Kazdin Method for Parenting the Defiant Child: With No Pills, No Therapy, No Contest of Wills.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
68
KonoldT.CornellD. (2015). Multilevel multitrait–multimethod latent analysis of structurally different and interchangeable raters of school climate.Psychol. Assess.271097–1109. 10.1037/pas0000098
69
KonoldT.SandersE. (2020). The nature of rater effects and differences in multilevel MTMM latent variable models.Measurement18177–195.
70
KorelitzK. E.GarberJ. (2016). Congruence of parents’ and children’s perceptions of parenting: a meta-analysis.J. Youth Adolesc.451973–1995. 10.1007/s10964-016-0524-0
71
KraemerH. C.MeaselleJ. R.AblowJ. C.EssexM. J.BoyceW. T.KupferD. J. (2003). A new approach to integrating data from multiple informants in psychiatric assessment and research: mixing and matching contexts and perspectives.Am. J. Psychiatry1601566–1577. 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.9.1566
72
LairdR. D. (2020). Analytical challenges of testing hypotheses of agreement and discrepancy: comment on Campione-Barr, Lindell, and Giron (2020).Dev. Psychol.56970–977. 10.1037/dev0000763
73
LairdR. D.De Los ReyesA. (2013). Testing informant discrepancies as predictors of early adolescent psychopathology: Why difference scores cannot tell you what you want to know and how polynomial regression may.J. Abnorm. Child Psychol.411–14. 10.1007/s10802-012-9659-y
74
LairdR. D.LaFleurL. K. (2016). Disclosure and monitoring as predictors of mother–adolescent agreement in reports of early adolescent rule-breaking behavior.J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol.45188–200. 10.1080/15374416.2014.963856
75
LapouseR.MonkM. A. (1958). An epidemiologic study of behavior characteristics in children.Am. J. Public Health481134–1144.
76
LernerM. D.De Los ReyesA.DrabickD. G.GerberA. H.GadowK. D. (2017). Informant discrepancy defines discrete, clinically useful autism spectrum disorder subgroups.J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry58829–839. 10.1111/jcpp.12730
77
LilienfeldS. O. (2007). Psychological treatments that cause harm.Perspect. Psychol. Sci.253–70. 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00029.x
78
LippoldM. A.GreenbergM. T.CollinsL. M. (2013). Parental knowledge and youth risky behavior: a person oriented approach.J. Youth Adolesc.421732–1744. 10.1007/s10964-012-9893-1
79
LippoldM. A.GreenbergM. T.CollinsL. M. (2014). Youths’ substance use and changes in parental knowledge-related behaviors during middle school: a person-oriented approach.J. Youth Adolesc.43729–744. 10.1007/s10964-013-0010-x
80
MakolB. A. (2021). Bias Versus Context Models for Integrating Multi-Informant Reports of Youth Mental Health.Ph.D. dissertation. College Park, MD: University of Maryland at College Park.
81
MakolB. A.De Los ReyesA.GarridoE.HarlaarN.TaussigH. (2021). Assessing the mental health of maltreated youth with child welfare involvement using multi-informant reports.Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev.5249–62.
82
MakolB. A.De Los ReyesA.OstranderR.ReynoldsE. K. (2019). Parent-youth divergence (and convergence) in reports of youth internalizing problems in psychiatric inpatient care.J. Abnorm. Child Psychol.471677–1689. 10.1007/s10802-019-00540-7
83
MakolB. A.PoloA. J. (2018). Parent-child endorsement discrepancies among youth at chronic-risk for depression.J. Abnorm. Child Psychol.461077–1088. 10.1007/s10802-017-0360-z
84
MakolB. A.YoungstromE. A.RaczS. J.QasmiehN.GlennL. E.De Los ReyesA. (2020). Integrating multiple informants’ reports: how conceptual and measurement models may address long-standing problems in clinical decision-making.Clin. Psychol. Sci.8953–970. 10.1177/2167702620924439
85
MarkonK. E.ChmielewskiM.MillerC. J. (2011). The reliability and validity of discrete and continuous measures of psychopathology: a quantitative review.Psychol. Bull.137856–879. 10.1037/a0023678
86
MartelM. M.EngA. G.BansalP. S.SmithT. E.ElkinsA. R.GohP. K. (2021). Multiple informant average integration of ADHD symptom ratings predictive of concurrent and longitudinal impairment.Psychol. Assess.33443–451. 10.1037/pas0000994
87
MeredithW. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance.Psychometrika58525–543. 10.1007/BF02294825
88
MillsapE. (2011). Statistical Methods for Studying Measurement Invariance.New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
89
MurrayA. L.SpeyerL. G.HallH. A.ValdebenitoS.HughesC. (2021). Teacher versus parent informant measurement invariance of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.J. Pediatr. Psychol.461249–1257. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsab062
90
NelemansS. A.BranjeS. J. T.HaleW. W.IIIGoosensL.KootH. M.OldehinkelA. J.et al (2016). Discrepancies between perceptions of the parent-adolescent relationship and early adolescent depressive symptoms: an illustration of polynomial regression analysis.J. Youth Adolesc.452049–2063. 10.1007/s10964-016-0503-5
91
NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory, 3rd Edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
92
OhannessianC. M.De Los ReyesA. (2014). Discrepancies in adolescents’ and their mothers’ perceptions of the family and adolescent anxiety symptomatology.Parenting141–18. 10.1080/15295192.2014.870009
93
OhannessianC. M.LairdR. D.De Los ReyesA. (2016). Discrepancies in adolescents’ and their mother’s perceptions of the family and mothers’ psychological symptomatology.J. Youth Adolesc.452011–2021. 10.1007/s10964-016-0477-3
94
OlinoT. M.FinsaasM.DoughertyL. R.KleinD. N. (2018). Is parent–child disagreement on child anxiety explained by differences in measurement properties? An examination of measurement invariance across informants and time.Front. Psychol.9:1295. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01295
95
OlinoT. M.Guerra-GuzmanK.HaydenE. P.KleinD. N. (2020). Evaluating maternal psychopathology biases in reports of child temperament: an investigation of measurement invariance.Psychol. Assess.321037–1046. 10.1037/pas0000945
96
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.Science349:aac4716. 10.1126/science.aac4716
97
OsterlindS. J.EversonH. T. (2009). Differential Item Functioning.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
98
RenkK.PharesV. (2004). Cross-informant ratings of social competence in children and adolescents.Clin. Psychol. Rev.24239–254.
99
ReynoldsC. R.LivingstonR. B.WillsonV. (2006). Measurement and Assessment in Education.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
100
RichtersJ. E. (1992). Depressed mothers as informants about their children: a critical review of the evidence for distortion.Psychol. Bull.112485–499. 10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.485
101
RobertsonI. T.SmithM. (2001). Personnel selection.J. Occup. Organ. Psychol.74441–472. 10.1348/096317901167479
102
RussellJ. D.GrahamR. A.NeillE. L.WeemsC. F. (2016). Agreement in youth-parent perceptions of parenting behaviors: a case for testing measurement invariance in reporter discrepancy research.J. Youth Adolesc.452094–2107. 10.1007/s10964-016-0495-1
103
SchauerF. (1987). Precedent.Stanford Law Rev.39571–605.
104
SchiltzH. K.MagnusB. E.McVeyA. J.HaendelA. D.DolanB. K.StanleyR. E.et al (2021). A psychometric analysis of the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents among youth with autism spectrum disorder: caregiver–adolescent agreement, factor structure, and validity.Assessment28100–115. 10.1177/1073191119851563
105
SkinnerB. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior.New York, NY: MacMillan.
106
StratisE. A.LecavalierL. (2015). Informant agreement for youth with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability: a meta-analysis.J. Autism Dev. Disord.451026–1041. 10.1007/s10803-014-2258-8
107
SulikM. J.BlairC.GreenbergM.Family Life Project Investigators (2017). Child conduct problems across home and school contexts: a person-centered approach.J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess.3946–57.
108
TackettJ. L.LilienfeldS. O.PatrickC. J.JohnsonS. L.KruegerR. F.MillerJ. D.et al (2017). It’s time to broaden the replicability conversation: thoughts for and from clinical psychological science.Perspect. Psychol. Sci.12742–756. 10.1177/1745691617690042
109
TagliabueS.ZambelliM.SorgenteA.SommerS.HoellgerC.BuhlH. M.et al (2021). Latent congruence model to investigate similarity and accuracy in family members’ perception: the challenge of cross-national and cross-informant measurement (non) invariance.Front. Psychol.12:672383. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.672383
110
VanwoerdenS.McLarenV.SteppS. D.SharpC. (2022). Are we thinking about the same disorder? A trifactor model approach to understand parents’ and their adolescents’ reports of borderline personality pathology.J. Pers. Assess.[Epub ahead of print]. 10.1080/00223891.2022.2039165
111
WakschlagL. S.TolanP. H.LeventhalB. L. (2010). Research review: “Ain’t misbehavin:” towards a developmentally-specified nosology for preschool disruptive behavior.J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry513–22. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02184.x
112
WattsA. L.MakolB. A.PalumboI. M.De Los ReyesA.OlinoT. M.LatzmanR. D.et al (2022). How robust is the p-factor? Using multitrait-multimethod modeling to inform the meaning of general factors of psychopathology in youth.Clin. Psychol. Sci.[Epub ahead of print]. 10.1177/21677026211055170
113
WeiszJ. R.ChorpitaB. F.PalinkasL. A.SchoenwaldS. K.MirandaJ.BearmanS. K.et al (2012). Testing standard and modular designs for psychotherapy with youth depression, anxiety, and conduct problems: a randomized effectiveness trial.Arch. Gen. Psychiatry69274–282. 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.147
114
WeiszJ. R.Jensen DossA.HawleyK. M. (2005). Youth psychotherapy outcome research: a review and critique of the evidence base.Annu. Rev. Psychol.56337–363.
115
WeiszJ. R.KrumholzL. S.SantucciL.ThomassinK.NgM. Y. (2015). Shrinking the gap between research and practice: tailoring and testing youth psychotherapies in clinical care contexts.Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol.11139–163. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032814-112820
116
WeiszJ. R.KuppensS.NgM. Y.EckshtainD.UguetoA. M.Vaughn-CoaxumR.et al (2017). What five decades of research tells us about the effects of youth psychological therapy: a multilevel meta-analysis and implications for science and practice.Am. Psychol.7279–117. 10.1037/a0040360
117
WeiszJ. R.McCartyC. A.ValeriS. M. (2006). Effects of psychotherapy for depression in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis.Psychol. Bull.132132–149. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.132
118
WeiszJ. R.WeissB.AlickeM. D.KlotzM. L. (1987). Effectiveness of psychotherapy with children and adolescents: a meta-analysis for clinicians.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.55542–549. 10.1037/0022-006X.55.4.542
119
WeiszJ. R.WeissB.HanS. S.GrangerD. A.MortonT. (1995). Effects of psychotherapy with children and adolescents revisited: a meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies.Psychol. Bull.117450–468. 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.450
120
YoungstromE. A.FindlingR. L.CalabreseJ. R. (2003). Who are the comorbid adolescents? Agreement between psychiatric diagnosis, youth, parent, and teacher report.J. Abnorm. Child Psychol.31231–245.
121
Zilcha-ManoS.ShimshoniY.SilvermanW. K.LebowitzE. R. (2021). Parent-child agreement on family accommodation differentially predicts outcomes of child-based and parent-based child anxiety treatment.J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol.50427–439. 10.1080/15374416.2020.1756300
Summary
Keywords
Converging Operations, Diverging Operations, domain-relevant information, informant discrepancies, Operations Triad Model
Citation
De Los Reyes A, Tyrell FA, Watts AL and Asmundson GJG (2022) Conceptual, methodological, and measurement factors that disqualify use of measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments. Front. Psychol. 13:931296. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.931296
Received
28 April 2022
Accepted
24 June 2022
Published
02 August 2022
Volume
13 - 2022
Edited by
Scott Thomas Meier, University at Buffalo, United States
Reviewed by
Wendy Guyker, University at Buffalo, United States; James Mcdougal, SUNY Oswego, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 De Los Reyes, Tyrell, Watts and Asmundson.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Andres De Los Reyes, adlr@umd.edu
This article was submitted to Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.