An overview of several models of confirmatory factor analysis for analyzing multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) data and a discussion of their advantages and limitations are provided. A new class of multi-indicator MTMM models combines several strengths and avoids a number of serious shortcomings inherent in previously developed MTMM models. The new models enable researchers to specify and to test trait-specific-method effects. The trait and method concepts composing these models are explained in detail and are contrasted with those of previously developed MTMM models for multiple indicators. The definitions of the models are explained step by step, and a practical empirical application of the models to the measurement of 3 traits x 3 methods is used to demonstrate their advantages and limitations.

The question as to which structural equation model should be selected when multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) data are analyzed is of interest to many researchers. In the past, attempts to find a well-fitting model have often been data-driven and highly arbitrary. In the present article, the authors argue that the measurement design (type of methods used) should guide the choice of the statistical model to analyze the data. In this respect, the authors distinguish between (a) interchangeable methods, (b) structurally different methods, and (c) the combination of both kinds of methods. The authors present an appropriate model for each type of method. All models allow separating measurement error from trait influences and trait-specific method effects. With respect to interchangeable methods, a multilevel confirmatory factor model is presented. For structurally different methods, the correlated trait-correlated (method-1) model is recommended. Finally, the authors demonstrate how to appropriately analyze data from MTMM designs that simultaneously use interchangeable and structurally different methods. All models are applied to empirical data to illustrate their proper use. Some implications and guidelines for modeling MTMM data are discussed.

There is a growing body of evidence for the effectiveness of trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy (TF-CBT) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but few studies to date have investigated the mechanisms by which TF-CBT leads to therapeutic change. Models of PTSD suggest that a core treatment mechanism is the change in dysfunctional appraisals of the trauma and its aftermath. If this is the case, then changes in appraisals should predict a change in symptoms. The present study investigated whether cognitive change precedes symptom change in Cognitive Therapy for PTSD, a version of TF-CBT. The study analyzed weekly cognitive and symptom measures from 268 PTSD patients who received a course of Cognitive Therapy for PTSD, using bivariate latent growth modeling. Results showed that (a) dysfunctional trauma-related appraisals and PTSD symptoms both decreased significantly over the course of treatment, (b) changes in appraisals and symptoms were correlated, and (c) weekly change in appraisals significantly predicted subsequent reduction in symptom scores (both corrected for the general decrease over the course of therapy). Changes in PTSD symptom severity did not predict subsequent changes in appraisals. The study provided preliminary evidence for the temporal precedence of a reduction in negative trauma-related appraisals in symptom reduction during trauma-focused CBT for PTSD. This supports the role of change in appraisals as an active therapeutic mechanism.

Although evolutionary and social-structural models predict that women will be more supportive than men in relationships, behavioral studies fail to confirm this difference. We predicted instead that gender differences in support will be moderated by stress, and that men will provide lower-quality support primarily when their stress is high. We predicted further that the detrimental effects of stress on men’s support will be more evident when men are responding to women’s emotionally toned expressions of stress than when men are responding to women’s affectively neutral expressions of stress. Stressed and unstressed men and women were observed providing support to a stressed relationship partner. While unstressed, men and women generally provided similar support to the stressed partner. While stressed, men provided lower-quality support than did comparably stressed women, but only in response to emotionally toned expressions of stress. Thus, gender differences in support may arise because women are better able than men to regulate other people’s emotional distress while managing stresses of their own.