CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 317Mental Health Research TopicsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology

Lack of theory building and testing impedes progress in the factor and network literature

Open access
Fried, Eiko I.·2020·Psychological Inquiry
DOI 10.1080/1047840x.2020.1853461
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The applied social science literature using factor and network models continues to grow rapidly. Most work reads like an exercise in model fitting, and falls short of theory building and testing in three ways. First, statistical and theoretical models are conflated, leading to invalid inferences such as the existence of psychological constructs based on factor models, or recommendations for clinical interventions based on network models. I demonstrate this inferential gap in a simulation: excellent model fit does little to corroborate a theory, regardless of quality or quantity of data. Second, researchers fail to explicate theories about psychological constructs, but use implicit causal beliefs to guide inferences. These latent theories have led to problematic best practices. Third, explicated theories are often weak theories: imprecise descriptions vulnerable to hidden assumptions and unknowns. Such theories do not offer precise predictions, and it is often unclear whether statistical effects actually corroborate weak theories or not. I demonstrate that these three challenges are common and harmful, and impede theory formation, failure, and reform. Matching theoretical and statistical models is necessary to bring data to bear on theories, and a renewed focus on theoretical psychology and formalizing theories offers a way forward.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1047840x.2020.1853461

Cites

155 of 155 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Epskamp, S., Rhemtulla, M., & Borsboom, D. (2016). Generalized net- work psychometrics: Combining network and latent variable models. Psychometrika. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.09288. · arXiv
  2. Lykken, D. T. (1991). What's wrong with psychology anyway? In D. Cicchetti & W. Grove (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 3-39). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  3. Marmot, M. (2015). The health gap: The challenge of an Unequal World. London: Bloomsbury.
  4. Mõttus, R., & Allerhand, M. (2017). Why do traits come together? The underlying trait and network approaches. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. Shackelford (Eds.), SAGE handbook of personality and individual dif- ferences: Volume 1. The science of personality and individual differen- ces (pp. 1-22). Beverly Hills: SAGE.
  5. Robinaugh, D. J., Haslbeck, J. M. B., Waldorp, L. J., Kossakowski, J. J., Fried, E. I., Millner, A. J., … Borsboom, D. (2019). Advancing the network theory of mental disorders: A computational model of panic disorder. 647209, 1-76. https://psyarxiv.com/km37w/.
  6. Yarkoni, T. (2019). The generalizability crisis. PsyArXiv, 1-26.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Fried, E. I.
Affiliations
Leiden University (NL)
Corresponding author
Fried, Eiko I.
ORCID
Fried, Eiko I.
Venue
Psychological Inquiry
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-10
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
271-288
ISSN
  • 1047-840X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7965
DOI
10.1080/1047840x.2020.1853461
OpenAlex
W3005081886
Cited by
317
References
155
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 10
FWCI
47.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Psychological Inquiry (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Keywords
factor models, network models, theory development, theory testing, psychological constructs, causal beliefs, weak theory, simulation study, theoretical psychology, formalization of theories, model fit

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