Cited by 191Mental Health Research TopicsChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The role of internalizing and externalizing liability factors in accounting for gender differences in the prevalence of common psychopathological syndromes

Kramer, Mark D., Krueger, Robert F., Hicks, Brian M.·2008·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background: We hypothesized that gender differences in average levels on the internalizing and externalizing factors that account for co-morbidity among common psychopathological syndromes in both men and women account for gender differences in the prevalence of specific syndromes. Method: The latent structure of 11 syndromes was examined in a middle-aged (mean age=52.66 years, s.d .=5.82) sample of 2992 (37% men) members of the community-based Minnesota Twin Registry (MTR) assessed using 10 scales of the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ) and an adult antisocial behavior scale. Confirmatory factorial invariance models were applied to a best-fitting, internalizing–externalizing model. Results: A ‘strong gender invariance model’ fit best, indicating that gender differences in the means of individual syndromes were well accounted for by gender differences in mean levels of internalizing and externalizing. Women exhibited higher mean levels of internalizing ( d =0.23) and lower mean levels of externalizing ( d =−0.52) than men. Conclusions: These findings suggest that risk factors for common mental disorders exhibiting gender differences may influence prevalence at the latent factor level. Future research may benefit from focusing on both the latent factor and individual syndrome levels in explaining gender differences in psychopathology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291707001572

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kramer, M. D., Krueger, R. F., & Hicks, B. M.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
  • Kramer, Mark D.
  • Krueger, Robert F.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2007-09-25
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
51-61
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W1967724567
Cited by
190
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 13
FWCI
8.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
gender differences, psychopathology prevalence, psychiatric syndromes, comorbidities, antisocial behavior, middle-aged adults, Minnesota Twin Registry, latent factor structure, psychiatric risk factors
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Anxiety Disorders, Mental Disorders, Major Depressive Disorder, Diseases in Twins, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Minnesota, Models, Psychological, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Syndrome, Models, Statistical, Comorbidity, Prevalence, Substance-Related Disorders, Genetic Predisposition to Disease

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review