Previous Monte Carlo simulations and empirical trials have demonstrated the power with which taxometric procedures distinguish between taxonic (categorical) and dimensional (continuous) latent structures. However, questions have been raised about results obtained using procedures modified to accommodate dichotomous indicators. The present investigation shows that the most widely used taxometric procedure (MAXCOV) can distinguish between latent structures when adapted for use with dichotomous indicators, although particularly large samples and substantially valid indicators are required. This study also illustrates the value of including a case removal consistency test as one component of a taxometric investigation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GangestadS.SnyderM. (1985) “To carve nature at its joints”: On the existence of discrete classes in personality. Psychological Review, 92, 317–349.
2.
GraysonD. A. (1987) Can categorical and dimensional views of psychiatric illness be distinguished?British Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 355–361.
3.
HarrisG. T.RiceM. E.QuinseyV. L. (1994) Psychopathy as a taxon: Evidence that psychopaths are a discrete class. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 387–397.
4.
HaslamN. (1994) Categories of social relationship. Cognition, 53, 59–90.
5.
HaslamN.BeckA. T. (1994) Subtyping major depression: A taxometric analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 686–692.
6.
KorfineL.LenzenwegerM. F. (1995) The taxonicity of schizotypy: A replication. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 26–31.
7.
LenzenwegerM. F. (1999) Deeper into the schizotypy taxon: On the robust nature of maximum covariance analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 182–187.
8.
LenzenwegerM. F.KorfineL. (1992) Confirming the latent structure and base rate of schizotypy: A taxometric analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 567–571.
9.
MeehlP. E. (1973) MAXCOV-HITMAX: A taxometric search method for loose genetic syndromes. In MeehlP. E. (Ed.), Psychodiagnosis: Selected papers. Minneapolis, MN: Univer. of Minnesota Press Pp 200–224.
10.
MeehlP. E. (1995) Bootstraps taxometrics: Solving the classification problem in psychopathology. American Psychologist, 50, 266–275.
11.
MeehlP. E. (1999) Clarifications about taxometric method. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8, 165–174.
12.
MeehlP. E.GoldenR. R. (1982) Taxometric methods. In KendallP. C.ButcherJ. N. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology. New York: Wiley. Pp. 127–181.
13.
MeehlP. E.YonceL. J. (1994) Taxometric analysis: I. Detecting taxonicity with two quantitative indicators using means above and below a sliding cut (MAMBAC procedure). Psychological Reports, 74, 1059–1274.
14.
MeehlP. E.YonceL. J. (1996) Taxometric analysis: II. Detecting taxonicity using covariance of two quantitative indicators in successive intervals of a third indicator (MAXCOV procedure). Psychological Reports, 78, 1091–1227.
15.
MillerM. B. (1996) Limitations of Meehl's MAXCOV-HITMAX procedure. American Psychologist, 51, 554–556.
16.
OakmanJ. M.WoodyE. Z. (1996) A taxometric analysis of hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 980–991.
17.
RuscioJ.RuscioA. M. (in press) Informing the continuity controversy: A taxometric analysis of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
18.
StrubeM. J. (1989) Evidence for the Type in Type A behavior: A taxometric analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 972–987.
19.
TrullT. J.WidigerT. A.GuthrieP. (1990) Categorical versus dimensional status of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 40–48.
20.
TyrkaA. R.CannonT. D.HaslamN.MednickS. A.SchulsingerF.SchulsingerH.ParnasJ. (1995) The latent structure of schizotypy: I. Premorbid indicators of a taxon of individuals at risk for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 173–183.
21.
WallerN. G.MeehlP. E. (1998) Multivariate taxometric analysis: Distinguishing types from continua. Thousand Oaks, CASage.
