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.

Network analysis of ecological momentary assessment identifies frustration as a central node in irritability.

BACKGROUND: Irritability presents transdiagnostically, commonly occurring with anxiety and other mood symptoms. However, little is known about the temporal and dynamic interplay among irritability-related clinical phenomena. Using a novel network analytic approach with smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA), we examined how irritability and other anxiety and mood symptoms were connected. METHODS: Sample included 152 youth ages 8-18 years (M ± SD = 12.28 ± 2.53; 69.74% male; 65.79% White) across several diagnostic groups enriched for irritability including disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (n = 34), oppositional defiant disorder (n = 9), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (n = 47), anxiety disorder (n = 29), and healthy comparisons (n = 33). Participants completed EMA on irritability-related constructs and other mood and anxiety symptoms three times a day for 7 days. EMA probed symptoms on two timescales: "since the last prompt" (between-prompt) versus "at the time of the prompt" (momentary). Irritability was also assessed using parent-, child- and clinician-reports (Affective Reactivity Index; ARI), following EMA. Multilevel vector autoregressive (mlVAR) models estimated a temporal, a contemporaneous within-subject and a between-subject network of symptoms, separately for between-prompt and momentary symptoms. RESULTS: For between-prompt symptoms, frustration emerged as the most central node in both within- and between-subject networks and predicted more mood changes at the next timepoint in the temporal network. For momentary symptoms, sadness and anger emerged as the most central node in the within- and between-subject network, respectively. While anger was positively related to sadness within individuals and measurement occasions, anger was more broadly positively related to sadness, mood lability, and worry between/across individuals. Finally, mean levels, not variability, of EMA-indexed irritability were strongly related to ARI scores. CONCLUSIONS: This study advances current understanding of symptom-level and temporal dynamics of irritability. Results suggest frustration as a potential clinically relevant treatment target. Future experimental work and clinical trials that systematically manipulate irritability-related features (e.g. frustration, unfairness) will elucidate the causal relations among clinical variables.

Real-time assessment of positive and negative affective fluctuations and mood lability in a transdiagnostic sample of youth.

BACKGROUND: Emotional lability, defined as rapid and/or intense affect fluctuations, is associated with pediatric psychopathology. Although numerous studies have examined labile mood in clinical groups, few studies have used real-time assessments in a well-characterized transdiagnostic sample, and no prior study has included participants with disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD). The present study leverages ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to assess emotional lability in a transdiagnostic pediatric sample. METHODS: One hundred thirty participants ages 8-18 with primary diagnoses of DMDD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), an anxiety disorder (ANX), or healthy volunteers completed a previously validated 1-week EMA protocol. Clinicians determined diagnoses based on semi-structured interviews and assessed levels of functional impairment. Participants reported momentary affective states and mood change. Composite scores of fluctuations in positive and negative affect were generated. Affect fluctuations were compared between diagnostic groups and tested for their association with functional impairment. RESULTS: Diagnostic groups differed in levels of negative and positive emotional lability. DMDD patients demonstrated the highest level of labile mood compared with other groups. Emotional lability was associated with global impairment in the whole sample. CONCLUSIONS: Both positive and negative emotional lability is salient in pediatric psychopathology and is associated with functional impairment, particularly in DMDD youth.