Latent classes of oppositional defiant disorder in adolescence and prediction to later psychopathology

Exploring transdiagnostic stress and trauma-related symptoms across the world: a latent class analysis

Background: Although trauma exposure is universally prevalent, the ways in which individuals respond to potentially traumatic events vary. Between-country differences have been identified as affecting the development and manifestation of transdiagnostic psychological symptoms, but it remains unclear how stress and trauma-related transdiagnostic symptoms and risk patterns differ based on geographic region.Objective: To explore whether there are distinct classes of stress and trauma-related transdiagnostic symptoms and to determine predictors of class membership in a global sample.Method: Participants (N = 8675) from 115 different countries were recruited online between 2020-2022 and completed the Global Psychotrauma Screen, which assesses stress and trauma exposure, related symptoms, and risk factors. A latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify classes of stress and trauma-related symptoms per world region (African States, Asia-Pacific States, Eastern European States, Latin American and Caribbean States, Western European and Other States, and North America) and the total sample. Likelihood of class membership was assessed based on demographics, characteristics of the potentially traumatic event, and potential risk factors across the world regions.Results: Similar class compositions were observed across regions. A joint latent class analysis identified three classes that differed by symptom severity (i.e. high, moderate, low). Multinomial logistic regression analyses revealed several factors that conferred greater risk for experiencing higher levels of symptoms, including geographic region, gender, and lack of social support, among others.Conclusions: Stress and trauma-related symptoms seem to be similarly transdiagnostic across the world, supporting the value of a transdiagnostic assessment.

Evidence-Based Assessment of DSM-5 Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders

The assessment of oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder-the Disruptive, Impulse Control and Conduct Disorders-can be affected by biases in clinical judgment, including overestimating concerns about distinguishing symptoms from normative behavior and stigma associated with diagnosing antisocial behavior. Recent nosological changes call for special attention during assessment to symptom dimensions of limited prosocial emotions and chronic irritability. The present review summarizes best practices for evidence-based assessment of these disorders and discusses tools to identify their symptoms. Despite the focus on disruptive behavior disorders, their high degree of overlap with disruptive mood dysregulation disorder can complicate assessment. Thus, the latter disorder is also included for discussion here. Good practice in the assessment of disruptive behavior disorders involves using several means of information gathering (e.g., clinical interview, standardized rating scales or checklists), ideally via multiple informants (e.g., parent-, teacher-, and self-report). A commitment to providing a full and accurate diagnostic assessment, with careful and attentive reference to diagnostic guidelines, will mitigate concerns regarding biases.

Co-Occurring Conduct Problems and Anxiety: Implications for the Functioning and Treatment of Youth with Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Conduct problems and anxiety symptoms commonly co-occur among youths with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD); however, how these symptoms influence functioning and treatment outcomes remains unclear. This study examined subtypes based on these co-occurring symptoms in a clinical sample of 134 youths (Mage = 9.67, 36.6% female, 83.6% white) with ODD and the predictive power of these subgroups for youth functioning and psychosocial treatment outcomes. The latent profile analysis (LPA) was used to identify subgroups based on parent- and self-reported conduct problems and anxiety symptoms. Differences among the subgroups in clinician-, parent-, and/or self-reported accounts of symptom severity, school performance, underlying processing known to be impaired across ODD, conduct and anxiety disorders, self-concept, and psychosocial treatment outcomes were examined. Four distinct profiles were identified: (1) Low Anxiety/Moderate Conduct Problems (n = 42); (2) High Anxiety/Moderate Conduct Problems (n = 33); (3) Moderate Anxiety/Moderate Conduct Problems (n = 40); and (4) Moderate Anxiety/High Conduct Problems (n = 19). The Moderate Anxiety/High Conduct Problems group exhibited more severe behavioral problems, greater difficulties with negative emotionality, emotional self-control, and executive functioning; they also demonstrated worse long-term treatment outcomes than the other subgroups. These findings suggest more homogeneous subgroups within and across diagnostic categories may result in a deeper understanding of ODD and could inform nosological systems and intervention efforts.

Assessment of oppositional defiant disorder and oppositional behavior in children and adolescents with Down syndrome

Introduction

Children and adolescents with intellectual disability (ID) exhibit higher rates of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) than typically developing (TD) peers. However, studies focusing on the investigation of ODD prevalence in youth with Down syndrome (DS) are still limited.

Methods

The current study aimed to investigate the prevalence of ODD clinical and subclinical symptoms in a group of 101 youth with DS (63 boys, 38 girls) ranging in age from 6 to 18 years. Moreover, the prevalence of ODD symptoms, as detected by means of three parent-report questionnaires, was compared with that detected by a semi-structured psychopathological interview, namely, the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School Aged Children Present and Lifetime (K-SADS) Version Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5).

Results

We found that 17% of participants met diagnostic criteria for ODD on the K-SADS, whereas 24% exhibited subclinical symptoms. Results also suggest good specificity of Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham-IV Rating Scale (SNAP-IV), Conners' Parent Rating Scales Long Version (CPRS) and Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) in detecting ODD symptoms. The investigation of the agreement in the prevalence rates of clinical and subclinical symptoms of ODD between K-SADS and the parent-report questionnaires indicated CPRS as the parent-report questionnaire with the best agreement with K-SADS.

Discussion

This study provides support for the use of parent-report questionnaires to assess ODD symptoms in children and adolescents with DS by evaluating their levels of agreement with a semi-structured psychopathological interview. In particular, our results suggest that CPRS could be considered a suitable screening tool for ODD clinical and subclinical symptoms in youth with DS.