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.

Irritability in Youths: A Critical Integrative Review.

Irritability, defined as proneness to anger that may impair an individual's functioning, is common in youths. There has been a recent upsurge in relevant research. The authors combine systematic and narrative review approaches to integrate the latest clinical and translational findings and provide suggestions for addressing research gaps. Clinicians and researchers should assess irritability routinely, and specific assessment tools are now available. Informant effects are prominent, are stable, and vary by age and gender. The prevalence of irritability is particularly high among individuals with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and mood and anxiety disorders. Irritability is associated with impairment and suicidality risk independent of co-occurring diagnoses. Developmental trajectories of irritability (which may begin early in life) have been identified and are differentially associated with clinical outcomes. Youth irritability is associated with increased risk of anxiety, depression, behavioral problems, and suicidality later in life. Irritability is moderately heritable, and genetic associations differ based on age and comorbid illnesses. Parent management training is effective for treating psychological problems related to irritability, but its efficacy in treating irritability should be tested rigorously, as should novel mechanism-informed interventions (e.g., those targeting exposure to frustration). Associations between irritability and suicidality and the impact of cultural context are important, underresearched topics. Analyses of large, diverse longitudinal samples that extend into adulthood are needed. Data from both animal and human research indicate that aberrant responses to frustration and threat are central to the pathophysiology of irritability, revealing important translational opportunities.

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.

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.

Daily Associations Between Sleep and Affect in Youth at Risk for Psychopathology: The Moderating Role of Externalizing Symptoms.

Problems with sleep, emotion regulation, and externalizing psychopathology are interrelated, but little is known about their day-to-day associations in youth. We examined self-reported daily sleep quality as a bidirectional predictor of next-day positive and negative affect (PA/NA), with externalizing symptoms as a moderator. Data were drawn from an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study involving 82 youths (ages 9-13; 50% female; 44% White, 37% Black/African American) at high (n = 41) or low (n = 41) familial risk for psychopathology. Parents rated youths' externalizing symptoms at baseline. Youths then completed a 9-day EMA protocol, reporting sleep quality 1x/day and affect 4-8x/day. Daily means, peaks, and variability in PA and NA were computed. Multilevel models examined bidirectional associations between sleep and affect (between- and within-person), testing externalizing symptoms as a moderator and controlling for age and sex. In models of sleep predicting affect: Within-person, poorer-than-usual sleep quality predicted greater variability and higher peaks in next-day NA, but only for youth with higher levels of externalizing symptoms. Between-person, poor sleep quality and higher levels of externalizing symptoms predicted lower mean and peak PA. In models of affect predicting sleep: Within-person, lower-than-usual mean PA predicted poorer subsequent sleep quality, but only for youth with higher levels of externalizing symptoms. Between-person, youths with higher mean and peak PA had better sleep quality. These findings suggest that affective functioning is bidirectionally linked to daily self-reported sleep quality among high- and low-risk youth. Specific disturbances in daily sleep-affect cycles may be distinctly associated with externalizing psychopathology.

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.

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.

Examining accurate diagnosis of complex PTSD in ICD-11.

BACKGROUND: Complex posttraumatic stress disorder (complex PTSD), the most frequently suggested new category for inclusion by mental health professionals, has been included in the Eleventh Revision of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Research has yet to explore whether clinicians' recognition of the distinct complex PTSD symptoms predicts giving the correct diagnosis. The present study sought to determine if international mental health professionals were able to accurately diagnose complex PTSD and identify the shared PTSD features and three essential diagnostic features, specific to complex PTSD. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to view two vignettes and tasked with providing a diagnosis (or indicating that no diagnosis was warranted). Participants then answered a series of questions regarding the presence or absence of each of the essential diagnostic features specific to the diagnosis they provided. RESULTS: Clinicians who recognized the presence or absence of complex PTSD specific features were more likely to arrive at the correct diagnostic conclusion. Complex PTSD specific features were significant predictors while the shared PTSD features were not, indicating that attending to each of the specific symptoms was necessary for diagnostic accuracy of complex PTSD. LIMITATIONS: The use of written case vignettes including only adult patients and a non-representative sample of mental health professionals may limit the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support mental health professionals' ability to accurately identify specific features of complex PTSD. Future work should assess whether mental health providers can effectively identify symptoms of complex PTSD in a clinical setting.

Toward greater specificity in the nonspecific: Estimating the prevalence of diagnostic irritability and sleep symptoms in adolescents.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) descriptive criterial approach to diagnosis has been criticized for contributing to comorbidity, heterogeneity within conditions, and nonspecificity across conditions. Much research has examined comorbidity and heterogeneity, but less is known about nonspecificity. Here, we examined two nonspecific symptoms: irritability and sleep disturbance. Both are common, clinically significant, and appear in several DSM disorder criteria sets, but their transdiagnostic prevalence is unknown. Leveraging a nationally representative epidemiological study of adolescents (n = 10,148; ages = 13-18), we first identified all instances where irritability or sleep disturbance appears in DSM-5-TR criteria for bipolar, depressive, anxiety, traumatic stress, or disruptive/impulse-control disorders; then found their DSM-IV equivalents in study variables; and finally estimated their prevalence individually and cumulatively across categories. Weighted lifetime prevalence estimates were 79.5% (95% CI [77.8, 81.2]) for irritability and 60.8% [58.7, 62.9] for sleep disturbance. Associations with age and gender were significant but small. Most youth reported multiple symptoms of irritability (weighted M = 3.04, Mdn = 2) and at least one symptom of sleep disturbance (weighted M = 1.61, Mdn = 1). Both problems were extremely common among individuals with specific disorders but were underestimated by the criteria for those conditions. Results suggest that the high prevalence of DSM-defined irritability and sleep problems may be obfuscated by these symptoms being scattered across diagnostic entities. There is a need for more research on assessing, treating, and understanding problems related to irritability and sleep in their own right, cutting across, rather than confined to, particular diagnoses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Principle-Guided Psychotherapy for Children and Adolescents (FIRST): study protocol for a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in outpatient clinics.

BACKGROUND: Hundreds of youth psychotherapy randomized trials have generated scores of helpful empirically supported treatments (ESTs). However, the standardized structure of many ESTs and their focus on a single disorder or homogeneous cluster of problems may not be ideal for clinically referred youths who have comorbidity and whose treatment needs may shift from week to week. This concern has prompted development of flexible transdiagnostic, modular youth psychotherapies. One of these, designed for efficient training and implementation, is FIRST-a transdiagnostic intervention built on five empirically supported principles of change (i.e., feeling calm, increasing motivation, repairing thoughts, solving problems, and trying the opposite) and targeting common internalizing and externalizing youth mental health disorders and problems. FIRST has shown promise in improving youth mental health in three open trials. Now, in a more rigorous test, we seek to (1) conduct a randomized controlled trial comparing FIRST to usual care in real-world clinical practice settings; (2) examine a promising candidate mediator of change-regulation of negative emotions; and (3) explore variables that may influence clinicians' treatment implementation. METHODS: This is an assessor-naïve randomized controlled effectiveness trial in youth outpatient community clinics in New England and Texas. Using double randomization, clinic-employed clinicians and treatment-referred youths (7-15 years old) are independently randomly allocated (1:1) to FIRST or usual care. We aim to recruit 212 youth participants, all referred through normal community pathways, with elevated symptoms of anxiety, depression, conduct problems, or post-traumatic stress. This study will test the effectiveness of FIRST compared to usual care on mental health outcomes, examine whether those outcomes are mediated by regulation of negative emotions, and explore clinician factors that may be associated with FIRST implementation and outcomes. Session recordings are coded to assess treatment fidelity. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the effectiveness of FIRST in youth community mental health settings, relative to the care usually provided in those settings. If FIRST is found to be effective, it could offer an efficient and practical method to increase use of empirically supported treatment principles in real-world practice contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIH Clinical Trials Registry, NCT04725721. Registered 27 January 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04725721.

Principle-Guided Psychotherapy for Children and Adolescents (FIRST): Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial in Outpatient Clinics.

Background: Hundreds of youth psychotherapy randomized trials have generated scores of helpful empirically supported treatments (ESTs). However, the standardized structure of many ESTs and their focus on a single disorder or homogeneous cluster of problems may not be ideal for clinically referred youths who have comorbidity and whose treatment needs may shift from week to week. This concern has prompted development of flexible transdiagnostic, modular youth psychotherapies. One of these, designed for efficient training and implementation, is FIRST-a transdiagnostic intervention built on five empirically supported principles of change (i.e., feeling calm, increasing motivation, repairing thoughts, solving problems, and trying the opposite) and targeting common internalizing and externalizing youth mental health disorders and problems. FIRST has shown promise in improving youth mental health in three open trials. Now, in a more rigorous test, we seek to (1) conduct a randomized controlled trial comparing FIRST to usual care in real-world clinical practice settings; (2) examine a promising candidate mediator of change-regulation of negative emotions; and (3) explore variables that may influence clinicians' treatment implementation. Methods: This is an assessor-naïve randomized controlled effectiveness trial in youth outpatient community clinics in New England and Texas. Using double randomization, clinic-employed clinicians and treatment-referred youths (7-15 years old) are independently randomly allocated (1:1) to FIRST or usual care. We aim to recruit 212 youth participants, all referred through normal community pathways, with elevated symptoms of anxiety, depression, conduct problems, or post-traumatic stress. This study will test the effectiveness of FIRST compared to usual care on mental health outcomes, examine whether those outcomes are mediated by regulation of negative emotions, and explore clinician factors that may be associated with FIRST implementation and outcomes. Session recordings are coded to assess treatment fidelity. Discussion: This study will evaluate the effectiveness of FIRST in youth community mental health settings, relative to the care usually provided in those settings. If FIRST is found to be effective, it could offer an efficient and practical method to increase use of empirically supported treatment principles in real-world practice contexts. Trial registration: NIH Clinical Trials Registry, NCT04725721. Registered 27 January 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04725721.

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.

Finding a Needed Diagnostic Home for Children with Impulsive Aggression.

Aggressive behavior is one of the most common reasons for referrals of youth to mental health treatment. While there are multiple publications describing different types of aggression in children, it remains challenging for clinicians to diagnose and treat aggressive youth, especially those with impulsively aggressive behaviors. The reason for this dilemma is that currently several psychiatric diagnoses include only some of the common symptoms of aggression in their criteria. However, no single diagnosis or diagnostic specifier adequately captures youth with impulsive aggression (IA). Here we review select current diagnostic categories, including behavior and mood disorders, and suggest that they do not provide an adequate description of youth with IA. We also specifically focus on the construct of IA as a distinct entity from other diagnoses and propose a set of initial, provisional diagnostic criteria based on the available evidence that describes youth with IA to use for future evaluation.

Editorial: Roads Less Traveled: New Directions for Novel Outcomes in Youth Irritability Research.

Road metaphors are ubiquitous in youth mental health. Developmental psychopathology research is described in terms of pathways, trajectories, cascades, and transitions. Children's behavioral concerns are discussed as warning signs and rough spots. Although these metaphors have long been useful abstractions, modern quantitative methods and large-scale longitudinal studies have made it possible to empirically investigate the "roads" traveled by individuals across development. One goal here is to chart the paths most often followed by different subgroups of youth. Another goal involves surveying variables that nudge children toward (or away from) psychopathology and other key outcomes. These 2 goals-finding trajectories and predictors thereof-have important implications for research, intervention, and policy; and some of the most important studies, in our view, accomplish both.

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.

Predictors of Dissertation Publication in Clinical and Counseling Psychology.

A doctoral dissertation constitutes a student's original research and a novel contribution to scientific knowledge. Yet, few psychology dissertations, particularly in professional subfields, are published in the peer-reviewed literature, and the reasons for this are unclear. The present study investigated student, advisor, and doctoral program variables that might predict dissertation publication in professional psychology. Using a stratified random cohort sample of 169 Ph.D. dissertations in clinical and counseling psychology, we conducted exhaustive searches to determine whether dissertation studies were published in peer-reviewed journals within 0-7 years following their completion. Logistic regression models were estimated to test whether dissertation publication was predicted by student and advisor prior research productivity, dissertation length, and doctoral program's training emphasis, accreditation status, and subfield. Results indicated that dissertations that were supervised by more research-productive advisors and that were relatively brief (<180 pages) were significantly more likely to be published in peer-reviewed journals. No other predictors were significant. Results are discussed with regard to implications for training and mentorship. Faculty advisors who publish frequently might be more likely to attract research-oriented students, to mentor students in preparing a publishable dissertation, and/or to encourage students to publish their dissertation research. By systematically promoting research dissemination as part of doctoral research training, graduate programs and faculty mentors in clinical and counseling psychology could help facilitate students' sharing their dissertation findings with the scientific community.

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.

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.

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.