A Reformulated Architecture of Cognitive Risks for Psychopathology: Common and Specific Dimensions and Links to Internalizing Outcomes in Adolescence

Prospective Prediction of Depression and Anxiety by Integrating Negative Emotionality and Cognitive Vulnerabilities in Children and Adolescents

Negative emotionality (NE) and multiple cognitive vulnerabilities (CVs) (negative inferential style, brooding, self-criticism, dependency, dysfunctional attitudes) independently predict internalizing outcomes. The present study examined whether NE and CVs could be structurally integrated into a common factor reflecting shared variance across risks, and specific factors reflecting unique variance in risks. We evaluated the validity and utility of this integrated model via prospective prediction of future depression and anxiety compared to alternative models (NE and CVs individually, a correlated factor model). Youth from a large community sample (N = 571; M = 13.58 years old; 55% girls, 44% boys) reported on NE and CVs. Depression and anxiety symptoms based on youth report, and disorder onset based on youth and caregiver diagnostic interviews were assessed over a 1½ years follow-up. Results supported a structural model including a general NE-CV dimension and specific dimensions for NE, common cognitive risk, negative inferential style, and brooding; model invariance was obtained from late childhood through late adolescence and for girls and boys. The integrated general NE-CV factor more consistently and strongly predicted future depressive (β = 0.58) and anxiety (β = 0.56) symptoms, and onsets of depression (OR = 1.81) and anxiety (OR = 2.23) relative to NE and CV risk dimensions across alternative models (ps < .01). The general NE-CV dimension represents an important means to efficiently represent transdiagnostic risk for internalizing outcomes among youth.

The breadth and potency of transdiagnostic cognitive risks for psychopathology in youth

OBJECTIVE

Multiple cognitive risks from different theoretical paradigms (dysfunctional attitudes, negative inferential style, self-criticism, dependency, brooding) predict depression, but may be transdiagnostic vulnerabilities for multiple psychopathologies. Risk factors can be identified as broadly transdiagnostic and relatively specific to psychopathological outcomes by organizing the common and specific aspects of each respective construct using latent bifactor models, and by examining links between dimensions of risk and psychopathology. This study evaluated (a) whether a bifactor model of cognitive vulnerabilities, including a general cognitive risk dimension (c factor) and several specific dimensions replicated in early adolescents (M_age = 13.50 years) and extended to younger and older youth, and (b) how the general and specific cognitive risk dimensions related to the general psychopathology (p factor) and internalizing- and externalizing-specific dimensions.

METHOD

Community youth (N = 571; 55% female) reported on cognitive risks; youth and a caregiver reported on psychopathologies (depression, anxiety, aggression, conduct, attention problems).

RESULTS

The cognitive risk bifactor model showed good fit and slight advantages over a correlated factors model. The bifactor model exhibited invariance across development and captured key associations that were identified when each individual cognitive risk was related to the bifactor model of psychopathology. The c factor strongly related to internalizing-specific, and moderately to the p factor and externalizing-specific dimensions. Specific cognitive risk dimensions (brooding, negative inferential style, dependency) related to all psychopathology dimensions.

CONCLUSION

A general cognitive vulnerability (c factor) transdiagnostically associates with a breadth of psychopathologies and most potently to internalizing-specific among youth. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Five-year prospective neuroticism-stress effects on major depressive episodes: Primarily additive effects of the general neuroticism factor and stress

The past decades of research on predictors of depression have frequently emphasized interactive diathesis-stress questions: What kinds of vulnerabilities under stressful circumstances increase risk of developing depression? This study addresses 3 theoretically important gaps in our knowledge regarding diathesis-stress models of depression: the role of temperament (neuroticism), interactive versus additive effects of neuroticism-stress relationships, and effects of stressor characteristics (acute vs. chronic, major vs. minor events, interpersonal vs. noninterpersonal content). We addressed these gaps in the prediction of major depressive episodes (MDEs) in a sample of high schoolers (n = 559) oversampled for high neuroticism and assessed for presence of MDEs annually for 5 years. Survival analyses provided relatively consistent support for the main effects of the broad vulnerability factor of the general neuroticism factor, acute stressors, and chronic stressors in the prediction of MDEs. In contrast, the majority of our analyses failed to support interactive neuroticism-stress accounts of MDE risk. Integrating our results with the extant literature reinforces the notion that both the general neuroticism factor and stress prospectively predict depressive disorders and highlight that their main effects are significantly larger than their interaction. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

A choose your own adventure story: Conceptualizing depression in children and adolescents from traditional DSM and alternative latent dimensional approaches

For the past several decades, the phenomenon of depression largely has been defined, classified, and thus assessed and analyzed, according to criteria based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (now DSM5). A substantial body of knowledge on epidemiology, course, risk factors, correlates, consequences, assessment, and intervention for youth depression is based on this classical nosological approach to conceptualizing depression. Yet, recent structural and classification approaches, such as latent dimensional bifactor models (e.g., P factor model; Caspi et al., 2014) and hierarchical organizations (e.g., HiTOP; Kotov, Waszczuk, Krueger, Forbes, & Watson, 2017), have been proposed and supported as alternative options to characterize features of depression. This paper considers conceptualizations of depression among youth with a particular focus on validity: how important clinical outcomes and risks (genetic, neural, temperament, early pubertal timing, stress, and cognitive) relate to depression when ascertained via traditional DSM-defined depression versus more recent latent dimensional model approaches. The construct validity of depression, in terms of associations within respective nomological networks, varies by depression conceptualization. Clinical scientists and applied practitioners need to clearly think through the nature of what depression is and how the latent construct is conceptualized and measured. Conclusions reached for research, teaching, and evidence-based clinical work are affected and may not be the same across different conceptual and nosological organizational schemes.