Emotion regulation as central to psychopathology across childhood and adolescence: a commentary on Nobakht et al. (2023).

An important goal of clinical/developmental research is to identify factors contributing to the onset and maintenance of psychopathology - particularly factors that could be modified through intervention. Large-scale, multi-informant, longitudinal studies provide valuable opportunities for testing such etiological hypotheses, as illustrated by Nobakht et al.'s recent six-wave cohort study spanning ages 4-14. At a within-person level, emotion regulation (ER) deficits consistently predicted oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) symptoms (including both irritability and defiance), whereas victimization did not. These results comport with growing evidence highlighting ER's centrality to ODD and psychopathology more broadly. While the ER findings carry promising implications, caution is warranted in interpreting the results for victimization given that its association with psychopathology is well-documented. More research is needed to test precise questions about within- and between-person processes involving ER, victimization, and psychopathology across development. Pressing research questions include whether, how, and when youths' ER can be modified, and with what effects on clinical outcomes.

The Affective Side of Disruptive Behavior: Toward Better Understanding, Assessment, and Treatment.

Historically, much of the progress made in youth mental health research can be classified as focusing on externalizing problems, characterized by disruptive behavior (e.g. aggression, defiance), or internalizing problems, characterized by intense negative affect (e.g. depression, anxiety). Until recently, however, less attention has been given to topics that lie somewhere in between these domains, topics that we collectively refer to as the affective side of disruptive behavior. Like the far side of the moon, the affective side of disruptive behavior captures facets of the phenomenon that may be less obvious or commonly overlooked, but are nonetheless critical to understand. This affective side clarifies socially disruptive aspects of traditionally "externalizing" behavior by elucidating proximal causation via intense negative affect (traditionally "internalizing"). Such problems include irritability, frustration, anger, temper loss, emotional outbursts, and reactive aggression. Given a recent explosion of research in these areas, efforts toward integration are now needed. This special issue was developed to help address this need. Beyond the present introductory article, this collection includes 4 empirical articles on developmental psychopathology topics, 4 empirical articles on applied treatment/assessment topics, 1 evidence base update review article on measurement, and 2 future directions review articles concerning outbursts, mood, dispositions, and youth psychopathology more broadly. By deliberatively investigating the affective side of disruptive behavior, we hope these articles will help bring about better understanding, assessment, and treatment of these challenging problems, for the benefit of youth and families.

Evidence Base Update on the Assessment of Irritability, Anger, and Aggression in Youth.

OBJECTIVE: Irritability, anger, and aggression have garnered significant attention from youth mental health researchers and clinicians; however, fundamental challenges of conceptualization and measurement persist. This article reviews the evidence base for assessing these transdiagnostic constructs in children and adolescents. METHOD: We conducted a preregistered systematic review of the evidence behind instruments used to measure irritability, anger, aggression, and related problems in youth. Searches were conducted in PsycINFO and PubMed, identifying 4,664 unique articles. Eligibility criteria focused on self- and proxy-report measures with peer-reviewed psychometric evidence from studies in English with youths ages 3-18. Additional measures were found through ancillary search strategies (e.g. book chapters, review articles, test publishers). Measures were screened and coded by multiple raters with acceptable reliability. RESULTS: Overall, 68 instruments met criteria for inclusion, with scales covering irritability (n = 15), anger (n = 19), aggression (n = 45), and/or general overt externalizing problems (n = 27). Regarding overall psychometric support, 6 measures (8.8%) were classified as Excellent, 46 (67.6%) were Good, and 16 (23.5%) were Adequate. Descriptive information (e.g. informants, scales, availability, translations) and psychometric properties (e.g. reliability, validity, norms) are summarized. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous instruments for youth irritability, anger, and aggression exist with varying degrees of empirical support for specific applications. Although some measures were especially strong, none had uniformly excellent properties across all dimensions, signaling the need for further research in particular areas. Findings promote conceptual clarity while also producing a well-characterized toolkit for researchers and clinicians addressing transdiagnostic problems affecting youth.

Is respiratory sinus arrhythmia a modifiable index of symptom change in cognitive behavioral therapy for youth? A pooled-data analysis of a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) reactivity and resting RSA-physiological markers reflecting the increase in heart rate with inspiration and decrease during expiration related to parasympathetic influence on the heart-are modifiable and predict symptom change during youth psychotherapy. Methods: Diverse youth (N = 158; ages 7-15; 48.1% female) received the Modular Approach to Therapy for Children and completed pre-treatment (pre), post-treatment (post), and 18-months postbaseline (18Mo) assessments. We measured resting RSA, RSA reactivity during stress induction, and psychopathology symptoms. Results: Pre-to-post and pre-to-18Mo, reactivity decreased, and resting RSA increased. Changes in reactivity and resting RSA, separately, did not predict reduced psychopathology. Yet, decreased reactivity combined with increased resting RSA predicted reduced psychopathology over time, suggesting that observed RSA changes were beneficial for some. Higher dosage of a module utilizing slow-breathing, muscle-relaxation, and imagery predicted greater pre-to-18Mo changes in reactivity and resting RSA, whereas a similar module with less emphasis on slow-breathing did not. Conclusions: Findings raise the possibility that youth reactivity and resting RSA could be modifiable during cognitive behavioral therapy and contribute to the amelioration of psychopathology. More studies are needed to determine whether resting RSA and RSA reactivity are modifiable indices of symptom change in slow-breathing practices and psychotherapy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03153904, registered May 15, 2017.

Future Directions in Youth Irritability Research.

Research on irritability in children and adolescents has proliferated over the last 20 years. The evidence shows the clinical and developmental significance of irritable mood and behavior in youth, and it has led to significant changes in mental health classification, diagnosis, and services. At the same time, this research (including our own) has led to relatively little new in terms of practical, empirically based guidance to improve interventions and outcomes. In this article, we briefly summarize some of these developments and current evidence-based practices. We then put forth two key substantive challenges (the "whats") for future research to address: (a) the need for more effective treatments, especially evaluating and adapting evidence-based treatments that are already well-established for problems related to irritability (e.g., cognitive-behavioral therapies for internalizing and externalizing problems); and (b) the need for a better mechanistic understanding of irritability's phenomenology (e.g., phasic vs. tonic irritability, how frustration unfolds) and putative underlying mechanisms (e.g., cognitive control, threat and reward dysfunction). Lastly, we suggest three methodological approaches (the "hows") that may expedite progress in such areas: (a) ecological momentary assessment, (b) digital health applications, and (c) leveraging existing datasets. We hope this article will be useful for students and early-career researchers interested in tackling some of these important questions to better meet the needs of severely irritable youth.

Is Irritability a Top Problem in Youth Mental Health Care? A Multi-informant, Multi-method Investigation.

Irritability is often described as a common problem affecting youth referred for mental health services; however, little is known about the prevalence and nature of irritability as a focus of treatment. We examined assessment data from a diverse sample of youths (N = 206; ages 7-15; 52% male, 48% female; 33% White, 27% Black, 25% Latinx) referred for outpatient treatment of emotional and behavioral concerns. Caregivers and youths completed nomothetic (standardized checklist) and idiographic (free response) measures at intake. Irritability was identified as a top problem (TP) in 58% of cases, commonly reported by caregivers (38%), youths (42%), or both (23%)-rates that were significantly greater than those of other TP domains (depression, anxiety, ADHD, conduct, and defiance). Further analyses identified clinical correlates of irritability TPs, with results supporting the incremental utility of multiple informants and methods. Findings suggest that irritability is among the most common problems for which families seek youth treatment.

Whose Outcomes Come Out? Patterns of Caregiver- and Youth-reported Outcomes Based on Caregiver-youth Baseline Discrepancies.

OBJECTIVE: Discrepancies between caregiver and youth reports of emotional and behavioral symptoms are well-documented, with cross-informant correlations often falling in the low to moderate range. Studies have shown that caregiver-youth (dis)agreement in reporting of youth symptoms is related to treatment outcomes. However, commonly used methods for exploring reporter discrepancies (e.g., difference scores) are limited by their inability to assess discrepancies across multiple symptom domains simultaneously, and thus these previous findings do not explore multiple patterns of (dis)agreement. METHOD: We used latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify subgroups of clinically referred youths based on patterns of caregiver- and youth-reported internalizing and externalizing symptoms for 174 caregiver-youth dyads. Longitudinal multilevel models were used to examine changes in weekly caregiver- and youth-reported internalizing symptoms, externalizing symptoms, and top problems for identified subgroups. RESULTS: The LPA identified four latent subgroups: (a) Caregiver Internalizing (9%), (b) Caregiver Internalizing-Externalizing (45%), (c) Youth Internalizing (7%), and (d) Caregiver-Youth Internalizing-Externalizing (39%). Clinical outcomes varied across informants and subgroups. Significant improvements in caregiver- and youth-reported outcome measures were documented within the Caregiver Internalizing, Caregiver Internalizing-Externalizing, and Caregiver-Youth Internalizing-Externalizing subgroups. However, only youth-reported improvements were detected in the Youth Internalizing subgroup. The results show differences in treatment outcomes across caregiver-youth informant subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest how youth and caregiver baseline data could provide guidance for clinicians in interpreting discrepant reporting and its relevance to change during treatment.

Debate: Oppositional defiant disorder is a real disorder.

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a valid mental health disorder, characterized by negativistic defiant behavior and angry, irritable mood. The very low and stable prevalence rate over development from early childhood into adulthood suggests that ODD does not erroneously medicalize normative childhood behavior. ODD is associated with significant impairments across multiple contexts and raises risks for other future psychopathology. Although simplistic tropes often suggest that ODD is merely the product of bad parenting, substantial evidence shows that it is instead influenced by a variety of factors, including genetic and neurobiological factors. Individuals with ODD evoke negative interactions with peers, teachers, coworkers, romantic partners, and parents. ODD is often misunderstood as being a mild form of conduct disorder (CD). Rather, in stark contrast to ODD, CD reflects a pattern of aggressive behaviors, violations of laws or status offenses, and psychopathic features. Mounting evidence for their distinction led to diagnostic changes distinguishing ODD and CD nearly a decade ago. Empirically supported treatments are available and help caregivers to develop specific parenting practices to meet the needs of children with ODD. Minimizing and mischaracterizing ODD increases the likelihood that families who are suffering may not seek the treatment that they need.

Diagnostic classification of irritability and oppositionality in youth: a global field study comparing ICD-11 with ICD-10 and DSM-5.

BACKGROUND: Severe irritability has become an important topic in child and adolescent mental health. Based on the available evidence and on public health considerations, WHO classified chronic irritability within oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) in ICD-11, a solution markedly different from DSM-5's (i.e. the new childhood mood diagnosis, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder [DMDD]) and from ICD-10's (i.e. ODD as one of several conduct disorders without attention to irritability). In this study, we tested the accuracy with which a global, multilingual, multidisciplinary sample of clinicians were able to use the ICD-11 classification of chronic irritability and oppositionality as compared to the ICD-10 and DSM-5 approaches. METHODS: Clinicians (N = 196) from 48 countries participated in an Internet-based field study in English, Spanish, or Japanese and were randomized to review and use one of the three diagnostic systems. Through experimental manipulation of validated clinical vignettes, we evaluated how well clinicians in each condition could identify chronic irritability versus nonirritable oppositionality, episodic bipolar disorder, dysthymic depression, and normative irritability. RESULTS: Compared to ICD-10 and DSM-5, ICD-11 led to more accurate identification of severe irritability and better differentiation from boundary presentations. Participants using DSM-5 largely failed to apply the DMDD diagnosis when it was appropriate, and they more often applied psychopathological diagnoses to developmentally normative irritability. CONCLUSIONS: The formulation of irritability and oppositionality put forth in ICD-11 shows evidence of clinical utility, supporting accurate diagnosis. Global mental health clinicians can readily identify ODD both with and without chronic irritability.

Can Clinicians Use Dimensional Information to Make a Categorical Diagnosis of Paraphilic Disorders? An ICD-11 Field Study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of paraphilic disorder is a complicated clinical judgment based on the integration of information from multiple dimensions to arrive at a categorical (present/absent) conclusion. The recent update of the guidelines for paraphilic disorders in ICD-11 presents an opportunity to investigate how mental health professionals use the diagnostic guidelines to arrive at a diagnosis which thereby can optimize the guidelines for clinical use. AIM: This study examined clinicians' ability to use the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders which contain multiple dimensions that must be simultaneously assessed to arrive at a diagnosis. METHODS: The study investigated the ability of 1,263 international clinicians to identify the dimensions of paraphilic disorder in the context of written case vignettes that varied on a single dimension only. OUTCOMES: Participants provided diagnoses for the case vignettes along with dimensional ratings of the degree of presence of five dimensions of paraphilic disorder (arousal, consent, action, distress, and risk). RESULTS: Across a series of analyses, clinicians demonstrated a clear ability to recognize and appropriately integrate the dimensions of paraphilic disorders; however, there was some evidence that clinicians may over-diagnose non-pathological cases. CLINICAL TRANSLATION: Clinicians would likely benefit from targeted training on the ICD-11 definition of paraphilic disorder and should be cautious of over-diagnosing. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study represents a large international sample of health professionals and is the first to examine clinicians' ability to apply the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders. Important limitations include not generalizing to all clinicians and acknowledging that results may be different in direct clinical interactions vs written case vignettes. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that clinicians appear capable of interpreting and implementing the diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders in ICD-11. Keeley JW, Briken P, Evans SC, et al. Can Clinicians Use Dimensional Information to Make a Categorical Diagnosis of Paraphilic Disorders? An ICD-11 Field Study. J Sex Med 2021;18:1592-1606.

Taxonomy and utility in the diagnostic classification of mental disorders.

OBJECTIVE: One strategy for improving the clinical utility of mental health diagnostic systems is to better align them with how clinicians conceptualize psychopathology in practice. This approach was used in International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11) development, but its underlying assumption-a link between taxonomic "fit" and clinical utility-remains untested. METHODS: Using data from global mental health clinician samples (combined N = 5404), we investigated the association between taxonomic fit and clinical utility in mental disorder categories. RESULTS: The overall association between fit and utility was positive (r = 0.19) but statistically not different from zero (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.06, 0.43) in this small sample (N = 39 ICD/DSM categories). However, a positive association became clear after correcting for outliers (r = 0.34 [0.05, 0.58] or higher). Further insights were apparent for specific diagnoses given their locations in the scatterplot. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest a positive link between taxonomic fit and clinical utility in mental disorder diagnoses, highlighting future research directions.

Assessing the Irritable and Defiant Dimensions of Youth Oppositional Behavior Using CBCL and YSR Items.

Research suggests that irritability and defiance are distinct dimensions of youth oppositionality that are differentially associated with internalizing and conduct problems, respectively. Because much of this evidence has emerged with limited psychometric evaluation, we conducted the first multi-informant examination of selected Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Youth Self Report (YSR) items for measuring irritability and defiance in a large clinical sample. Clinically referred youths (N = 1,030; ages 6-15; 43% female, 42% ethnic minority) were assessed prior to treatment using multi-informant rating scales and diagnostic interviews. Analyses examined factor structure, invariance, internal consistency, multi-informant patterns, and convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity with internalizing and externalizing problems/disorders. A correlated 2-factor model of irritability (stubborn/sullen/irritable, mood, temper) and defiance (argues, disobeys-home, disobeys-school) fit well for both informants. Adequate measurement invariance and scale consistency was consistently found for parent-report but not youth-report. With both informants, all hypothesized convergent and discriminant validity associations were supported: irritability and defiance with internalizing and conduct scales, respectively. However, hypothesized criterion validity associations were largely found only by parent-report: irritability with anxiety and depressive disorders, defiance with conduct disorder, and both with oppositional defiant disorder. Results consistently supported the reliability and validity of the CBCL irritability and defiance scales, with somewhat less consistent support for the YSR scales. Thus, CBCL items may provide psychometrically sound assessment of irritability and defiance, whereas further research is needed to advance youth-report and multi-informant strategies. Results also provide further support for a two subdimension model of oppositional defiant disorder symptoms that includes irritability and defiance.

Examining ODD/ADHD Symptom Dimensions as Predictors of Social, Emotional, and Academic Trajectories in Middle Childhood.

The goal of this article is to investigate the symptom dimensions of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD; irritability, defiance) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; inattention, hyperactivity-impulsivity) as predictors of academic performance, depressive symptoms, and peer functioning in middle childhood. Children (N = 346; 51% female) were assessed via teacher-report on measures of ODD/ADHD symptoms at baseline (Grades K-2) and academic performance, depressive symptoms, peer rejection, and victimization on 7 occasions over 4 school years (K-2 through 3-5). Self-report and grade point average data collected in Grades 3-5 served as converging outcome measures. Latent growth curve and multiple regression models were estimated using a hierarchical/sensitivity approach to assess robustness and specificity of effects. Irritability predicted higher baseline depressive symptoms, peer rejection, and victimization, whereas defiance predicted higher baseline peer rejection; however, none of these ODD-related effects persisted 3 years later to Grades 3-5. In contrast, inattention predicted persistently poorer academic performance, persistently higher depressive symptoms, and higher baseline victimization; hyperactivity-impulsivity predicted subsequent peer rejection and victimization in Grades 3-5. In converging models, only inattention emerged as a robust predictor of 3-year outcomes (viz., grade point average, depressive symptoms, peer rejection, and relational victimization). Broadly, ODD dimensions-particularly irritability-may be linked to acute disturbances in social-emotional functioning in school-age children, whereas ADHD dimensions may predict more persistent patterns of peer, affective, and academic problems. By examining all 4 ODD/ADHD symptom dimensions simultaneously, the present analyses offer clarity and specificity regarding which dimensions affect what outcomes, and when. Findings underscore the importance of multidimensional approaches to research, assessment, and intervention.

Efficient Monitoring of Treatment Response during Youth Psychotherapy: The Behavior and Feelings Survey.

An emerging trend in youth psychotherapy is measurement-based care (MBC): treatment guided by frequent measurement of client response, with ongoing feedback to the treating clinician. MBC is especially needed for treatment that addresses internalizing and externalizing problems, which are common among treatment-seeking youths. A very brief measure is needed, for frequent administration, generating both youth- and caregiver-reports, meeting psychometric standards, and available at no cost. We developed such a measure to monitor youth response during psychotherapy for internalizing and externalizing problems. Across 4 studies, we used ethnically diverse, clinically relevant samples of caregivers and youths ages 7-15 to develop and test the Behavior and Feelings Survey (BFS). In Study 1, candidate items identified by outpatient youths and their caregivers were examined via an MTurk survey, with item response theory methods used to eliminate misfitting items. Studies 2-4 used separate clinical samples of youths and their caregivers to finalize the 12-item BFS (6 internalizing and 6 externalizing items), examine its psychometric properties, and assess its performance in monitoring progress during psychotherapy. The BFS showed robust factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity in relation to three well-established symptom measures, and slopes of change indicating efficacy in monitoring treatment progress during therapy. The BFS is a brief, free youth- and caregiver-report measure of internalizing and externalizing problems, with psychometric evidence supporting its use for MBC in clinical and research contexts.

Testing Robustness of Child STEPs Effects with Children and Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial.

A critical task in psychotherapy research is identifying the conditions within which treatment benefits can be replicated and outside of which those benefits are reduced. We tested the robustness of beneficial effects found in two previous trials of the modular Child STEPs treatment program for youth anxiety, depression, trauma, and conduct problems. We conducted a randomized trial, with two significant methodological changes from previous trials: (a) shifting from cluster- to person-level randomization, and (b) shifting from individual to more clinically feasible group-based consultation with STEPs therapists. Fifty community clinicians from multiple outpatient clinics were randomly assigned to receive training and consultation in STEPs (n= 25) or to provide usual care (UC; n= 25). There were 156 referred youths-ages 6-16 (M= 10.52, SD = 2.53); 48.1% male; 79.5% Caucasian, 12.8% multiracial, 4.5% Black, 1.9% Latino, 1.3% Other-who were randomized to STEPs (n= 77) or UC (n= 79). Following previous STEPs trials, outcome measures included parent- and youth-reported internalizing, externalizing, total, and idiographic top problems, with repeated measures collected weekly during treatment and longer term over 2 years. Participants in both groups showed statistically significant improvement on all measures, leading to clinically meaningful problem reductions. However, in contrast to previous trials, STEPs was not superior to UC on any measure. As with virtually all treatments, the benefits of STEPs may depend on the conditions-for example, of study design and implementation support-in which it is tested. Identifying those conditions may help guide appropriate use of STEPs, and other treatments, in the future.

The classification of feeding and eating disorders in the ICD-11: results of a field study comparing proposed ICD-11 guidelines with existing ICD-10 guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) is used globally by 194 WHO member nations. It is used for assigning clinical diagnoses, providing the framework for reporting public health data, and to inform the organization and reimbursement of health services. Guided by overarching principles of increasing clinical utility and global applicability, the 11th revision of the ICD proposes major changes that incorporate empirical advances since the previous revision in 1992. To test recommended changes in the Mental, Behavioral, and Neurodevelopmental Disorders chapter, multiple vignette-based case-controlled field studies have been conducted which examine clinicians' ability to accurately and consistently use the new guidelines and assess their overall clinical utility. This manuscript reports on the results from the study of the proposed ICD-11 guidelines for feeding and eating disorders (FEDs). METHOD: Participants were 2288 mental health professionals registered with WHO's Global Clinical Practice Network. The study was conducted in Chinese, English, French, Japanese, and Spanish. Clinicians were randomly assigned to apply either the ICD-11 or ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines for FEDs to a pair of case vignettes designed to test specific clinical questions. Clinicians selected the diagnosis they thought was correct for each vignette, evaluated the presence of each essential feature of the selected diagnosis, and the clinical utility of the diagnostic guidelines. RESULTS: The proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines significantly improved accuracy for all FEDs tested relative to ICD-10 and attained higher clinical utility ratings; similar results were obtained across all five languages. The inclusion of binge eating disorder and avoidant-restrictive food intake disorder reduced the use of residual diagnoses. Areas needing further refinement were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines consistently outperformed ICD-10 in distinguishing cases of eating disorders and showed global applicability and appropriate clinical utility. These results suggest that the proposed ICD-11 guidelines for FEDs will help increase accuracy of public health data, improve clinical diagnosis, and enhance health service organization and provision. This is the first time in the revision of the ICD that data from large-scale, empirical research examining proposed guidelines is completed in time to inform the final diagnostic guidelines.

Sex/Gender Differences in Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder: Implications for Evidence-Based Assessment.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is diagnosed more often in boys than in girls; however, little is known about the nature of this sex/gender discrepancy or how it relates to diagnostic assessment practices. This study examined the performance of the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ) in screening for ASD among boys and girls. Data were drawn from the South Carolina Children's Educational Surveillance Study, a population-based study of ASD prevalence among children 8-10 years of age. Analyses were conducted using SCQ data from 3,520 children, with direct assessment data from 272 with elevated SCQ scores. A bifactor model based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders's (5th ed.) two ASD symptom domains fit the data well and performed slightly better for girls. In the general population sample, girls exhibited fewer social communication/interaction and restricted-repetitive behavior symptoms than boys. In the direct assessment sample, however, girls with ASD showed greater impairment in social communication/interaction than boys with ASD. Items pertaining to social communication/interaction problems at ages 4-5 were among the most diagnostically efficient overall and particularly for girls. Similarly, receiver operating characteristic analyses suggested that the SCQ performs adequately among boys and well among girls. Results support the use of the SCQ in screening for ASD but do not indicate sex/gender-specific cutoffs. Girls with ASD may exhibit pronounced intraindividual deficits in social communication/interaction compared to male peers with ASD and female peers without ASD. Although more research is needed, careful attention to social communication/interaction deficits around 4-5 years of age may be especially useful for assessing ASD in girls.

Forms and Functions of Aggression in Early Childhood.

Evidence supports the distinctions between forms (relational vs. physical) and functions (proactive vs. reactive) of aggression; however, little research has investigated these two subtype frameworks simultaneously or by teacher-report in early childhood. We examined the factor structures, interrelations, and longitudinal associations of teacher-reported forms and functions of aggression in young children. Preschool and kindergarten students (N = 133; ages 3-6 years; 58.6% male) were rated by their teachers during the spring semester and on two subsequent occasions over the following school year (a three-wave cross-sequential design). Bayesian confirmatory factor analyses and path models were estimated, controlling for covariates and cross-classification of students within classrooms. Correlated two-factor models showed acceptable measurement characteristics for both aggression frameworks. Within and between frameworks, aggression subtypes were highly correlated with one another. Physical aggression showed greater stability than, and was a precursor to, relational aggression, whereas both proactive and reactive aggression were stable and bidirectional. All subtypes-especially reactive and physical aggression-were robustly associated with peer rejection but not with academic performance or depressive symptoms. Results suggest that brief, teacher-reported rating scales can be used to measure forms and functions of aggression during early childhood. However, examination of one framework should elicit questions regarding the other (e.g., to what extent are measures of proactive and reactive aggression capturing physical aggression?), and research following a form-by-function approach may be particularly useful. Given their stability and outcomes, physical, reactive, and proactive aggression may be important targets for screening and intervention in early childhood settings.

Advancing the Scientific Foundation for Evidence-Based Practice in Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology.

Evidence-based practice (EBP) has become a central focus in clinical child and adolescent psychology. As originally defined, EBP in psychology is the integration of the best available research evidence, patient characteristics, and clinical expertise. Although evidence-based perspectives have garnered widespread acceptance in recent years, there has also been some confusion and disagreement about the 3-part definition of EBP, particularly the role of research. In this article, we first provide a brief review of the development of EBP in clinical child and adolescent psychology. Next, we outline the following 4 points to help clarify the understanding of EBP: (a) knowledge should not be confused with epistemic processes, (b) research on clinician and client factors is needed for EBP, (c) research on assessment is needed for EBP, and (d) the 3-part conceptualization of EBP can serve as a useful framework to guide research. Based on these principles, we put forth a slightly revised conceptualization of EBP, in which the role of research is expanded and more clearly operationalized. Finally, based on our review of the literature, we offer illustrative examples of specific directions for future research to advance the evidence base for EBP in clinical child and adolescent psychology.