1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology
  4. Volume 19, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Clinical Psychology

Volume 19, 2023

The Questionable Practice of Partialing to Refine Scores on and Inferences About Measures of Psychological Constructs

Abstract

Partialing is a statistical approach researchers use with the goal of removing extraneous variance from a variable before examining its association with other variables. Controlling for confounds through analysis of covariance or multiple regression analysis and residualizing variables for use in subsequent analyses are common approaches to partialing in clinical research. Despite its intuitive appeal, partialing is fraught with undesirable consequences when predictors are correlated. After describing effects of partialing on variables, we review analytic approaches commonly used in clinical research to make inferences about the nature and effects of partialed variables. We then use two simulations to show how partialing can distort variables and their relations with other variables. Having concluded that, with rare exception, partialing is ill-advised, we offer recommendations for reducing or eliminating problematic uses of partialing. We conclude that the best alternative to partialing is to define and measure constructs so that it is not needed.

Keyword(s): construct validity, questionable measurement practice, residualized variables, semipartial effects, statistical control
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071720-015436
2023-05-09
2024-04-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/clinpsy/19/1/annurev-clinpsy-071720-015436.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071720-015436&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aldea MA, Rice KG. 2006. The role of emotional dysregulation in perfectionism and psychological distress. J. Counsel. Psychol. 53:498–510
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Averill PM, Diefenbach GJ, Stanley MA, Breckenridge JK, Lusby B. 2002. Assessment of shame and guilt in a psychiatric sample: a comparison of two measures. Personal. Individ. Diff. 32:1365–76
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bagby RM, Widiger TA. 2018. Five Factor Model personality disorder scales: an introduction to a special section on assessment of maladaptive variants of the Five Factor Model. Psychol. Assess. 30:1–9
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bannister JA, Colvonen PJ, Angkaw AC, Norman SB. 2019. Differential relationships of guilt and shame on posttraumatic stress disorder among veterans. Psychol. Trauma 11:35–42
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Batty GD, McIntosh AM, Russ TC, Deary IJ, Gale CR. 2016. Psychological distress, neuroticism, and cause-specific mortality: early prospective evidence from UK Biobank. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 70:1136–39
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bonifay W, Lane SP, Reise SP. 2017. Three concerns with applying a bifactor model as a structure of psychopathology. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 5:184–86
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bringmann LF, Elmer T, Epskamp S, Krause RW, Schoch D et al. 2019. What do centrality measures measure in psychological networks?. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 128:892–903
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cândea DM, Szentagotai-Tăta A. 2018. Shame-proneness, guilt-proneness and anxiety symptoms: a meta-analysis. J. Anxiety Disord. 58:78–106
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark LA, Watson D. 1991. Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 100:316–36
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark LA, Watson D. 1995. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol. Assess. 7:309–19
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohen J, Cohen P. 1983. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. , 2nd ed..
  12. Collison KL, Vize CE, Miller JD, Lynam DR. 2018. Development and preliminary validation of a Five Factor Model measure of Machiavellianism. Psychol. Assess. 30:1401–7
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Condon DM, Wood D, Mõttus R, Booth T, Costantini G et al. 2020. Bottom up construction of a personality taxonomy. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 36:923–34
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Costantini G, Epskamp S, Borsboom D, Perugini M, Mõttus R et al. 2015. State of the aRt personality research: a tutorial on network analysis of personality data in R. J. Res. Personal. 54:13–29
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Cramer AOJ, Waldorp LJ, van der Maas HIJ, Borsboom D 2010. Comorbidity: a network perspective. Behav. Brain Sci. 33:137–93
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull. 52:281–302
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Cudeck R. 1989. Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Psychol. Bull. 105:317–27
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Darlington RB, Hayes AF. 2017. Regression Analysis and Linear Models New York: Guilford
  19. dos Santos MA, de Freitas e Castro JM, de Freitas Lino Pinto Cardoso CS. 2020. The moral emotions of guilt and shame in children: relationship with parenting and temperament. J. Child Fam. Stud. 29:2759–69
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fee RL, Tangney JP. 2000. Procrastination: a means of avoiding shame or guilt?. J. Soc. Behav. Personal. 15:167–84
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Fite PJ, Stoppelbein L, Greening L. 2009. Proactive and reactive aggression in a child psychiatric inpatient population. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 38:199–205
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Flake JK, Fried EI. 2020. Measurement schmeasurement: questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 3:456–65
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Forbes MK, Wright AGC, Markon KE, Krueger RF. 2019. The network approach to psychopathology: promise versus reality. World Psychiatry 18:272–73
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Forbes MK, Wright AGC, Markon KE, Krueger RF. 2021. On unreplicable inferences in psychopathology symptom networks and the importance of unreliable parameter estimates. Multivar. Behav. Res. 56:368–76
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Funder DC, Ozer DJ. 2019. Evaluating effect size in psychological research: sense and nonsense. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2:156–68
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Geisner IM, Koopmann J, Bamberger P, Wang M, Larimer ME et al. 2018. When the party continues: impulsivity and the effect of employment on young adults' post-college alcohol use. Addict. Behav. 77:114–20
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hallquist MN, Wright AGC, Molenaar PC. 2021. Problems with centrality measures in psychopathology symptom networks: why network psychometrics cannot escape psychometric theory. Multivar. Behav. Res. 56:199–223
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hill AP. 2014. Perfectionistic strivings and the perils of partialling. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 12:302–15
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hill RW, Huelsman TJ, Araujo G. 2010. Perfectionistic concerns suppress associations between perfectionistic strivings and positive life outcomes. Personal. Individ. Differ. 48:584–89
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hünermund P, Louw B. 2005. On the nuisance of control variables in regression analysis. arXiv:2005.10314v3 [econ.EM]
  31. Jaccard J, Guilamo-Ramos V, Johansson M, Bouris A. 2006. Multiple regression analyses in clinical child and adolescent psychology. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 35:456–79
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Jonason PK, Lyons M, Baughman HM, Vernon PA. 2014. What a tangled web we weave: the Dark Triad and deception. Personal. Individ. Differ. 70:117–19
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Jonason PK, Tome J 2019. How happiness expectations relate to the Dark Triad traits. J. Soc. Psychol. 159:371–82
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kim E, Anderson CA, Gentile DA. 2021. 7 ± 2 deadly sins of video game violence research. Masters of Media: Controversies and Solutions. 1ed VC Strasburger 19–41. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kowalski CM, Kwiatkowska K, Kwiatkowska MM, Ponikiewska K, Rogoza R, Schermer JA. 2018. The Dark Triad traits and intelligence: Machiavellians are bright, and narcissists and psychopaths are ordinary. Personal. Individ. Differ. 135:1–6
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Lawson KM, Robins RW. 2021. Sibling constructs: what are they, why do they matter, and how should you handle them?. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 25:344–66
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Loevinger J. 1957. Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychol. Rep. 3:635–94
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Lynam DR, Hoyle RH, Newman JP. 2006. The perils of partialling: cautionary tales from aggression and psychopathy. Assessment 13:328–41
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lyons M, Croft A, Fairhurst S, Varley K, Wilson C. 2017. Seeing through crocodile tears? Sex-specific associations between the Dark Triad traits and lie detection accuracy. Personal. Individ. Differ. 113:1–4
     [Google Scholar]
  40. MacKinnon DP, Krull JL, Lockwood CM. 2000. Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prev. Sci. 1:173–81
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Maughan B, Taylor C, Taylor A, Butler N, Bynner J. 2001. Pregnancy smoking and childhood conduct problems: a causal association?. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 42:1021–28
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Meehl PE. 1971. High school yearbooks: a reply to Schwartz. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 77:143–48
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Meehl PE. 1975. Genes and the unchangeable core. VOICES: Art Sci. Psychother. 10:25–35
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Meehl PE. 1990. Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychol. Rep. 66:195–244
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Miller GA, Chapman JP. 2001. Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 110:40–48
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Miller JD, Hyatt CS, Maples-Keller JL, Carter NT, Lynam DR. 2017. Psychopathy and Machiavellianism: a distinction without a difference?. J. Personal. 85:439–53
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Miller JD, Lynam DR. 2006. Reactive and proactive aggression: similarities and differences. Personal. Individ. Differ. 41:1469–80
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Mõttus R, Kandler C, Bleidorn W, Riemann R, McCrae RR. 2017. Personality traits below facets: the consensual validity, longitudinal stability, heritability, and utility of personality nuances. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 112:474–90
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Orben A, Lakens D. 2020. Crud (re)defined. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 3:238–47
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Raine A, Dodge K, Loeber R, Gatzke-Kopp L, Lynam D et al. 2006. The Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire: differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggress. Behav. 32:159–71
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Rose L, Miller JD, Lynam DR. 2023. Validation of the Five-Factor Model Antagonistic Triad Measure. Assessment 30:782–97
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Ruisch IH, Dietrich A, Glennon JC, Buitelaar JK, Hoekstra PJ. 2018. Maternal substance use during pregnancy and offspring conduct problems: a meta-analysis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 84:325–36
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Santor DA, Gregus M, Welch A. 2006. Eight decades of measurement in depression. Measurement 4:135–55
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Schneider BA, Avivi-Reich M, Mindaugas Mozuraitis M. 2015. A cautionary note on the use of the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in classification designs with and without within-subject factors. Front. Psychol. 6:474
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol. Sci. 22:1359–66
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Sleep CE, Lynam DR, Hyatt CS, Miller JD. 2017. Perils of partialing redux: the case of the Dark Triad. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 126:939–50
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Smith GT, McCarthy DM. 1995. Methodological considerations in the refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol. Assess. 7:300–8
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Smith GT, McCarthy DM, Zapolski TCB. 2009. On the value of homogeneous constructs for construct validation, theory testing, and the description of psychopathology. Psychol. Assess. 21:272–84
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Spector PE, Brannick MT. 2011. Methodological urban legends: the misuse of statistical control variables. Organ. Res. Methods 14:287–305
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Stark PB, Saltelli A. 2018. Cargo-cult statistics and scientific crisis. Significance 15:40–43
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Strauss ME, Smith GT. 2009. Construct validity: advances in theory and methodology. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 5:1–25
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Vize CE, Collison KL, Miller JD, Lynam DR. 2018. Examining the effects of controlling for shared variance among the Dark Triad using meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Eur. J. Personal. 32:46–61
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Vize CE, Collison KL, Miller JD, Lynam DR. 2020a. The “core” of the Dark Triad: a test of competing hypotheses. Personal. Disord. 11:91–99
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Vize CE, Collison KL, Miller JD, Lynam DR. 2020b. Using item-level analyses to better understand the consequences of partialing procedures: an example using the Dark Triad. J. Personal. 88:719–34
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Walton KE, Pantoja G, McDermut W. 2018. Associations between lower order facets of personality and dimensions of mental disorder. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 40:465–75
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Wang YA, Eastwick PW. 2020. Solutions to the problems of incremental validity testing in relationship science. Pers. Relatsh. 27:156–75
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Watts AL, Poore HE, Waldman ID. 2019. Riskier tests of the validity of the bifactor model of psychopathology. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 7:1285–303
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Weidman AC, Steckler CM, Tracy JL. 2017. The jingle and jangle of emotion assessment: imprecise measurement, casual scale usage, and conceptual fuzziness in emotion research. Emotion 17:267–95
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Westfall J, Yarkoni T. 2016. Statistically controlling for confounding constructs is harder than you think. PLOS ONE 11:e0152719
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Wright PJ. 2021. Pornographic socialization as “selective-exposure”: Let it go, let it go II. Arch. Sex. Behav. 50:393–99
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Zinbarg RE, Suzuki S, Uliaszek AA, Lewis AR. 2010. Biased parameter estimates and inflated Type I error rates in analysis of covariance (and analysis of partial variance) arising from unreliability: alternatives and remedial strategies. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 119:307–19
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071720-015436
Loading
The Questionable Practice of Partialing to Refine Scores on and Inferences About Measures of Psychological Constructs
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 19, 155 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071720-015436
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071720-015436
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071720-015436
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error