Threat and deprivation are associated with distinct aspects of cognition, emotional processing, and psychopathology in children and adolescents.

Exposure to childhood adversity has been consistently associated with poor developmental outcomes, but it is unclear whether these associations vary across different forms of adversity. We examined cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between threat and deprivation with cognition, emotional processing, and psychopathology in a middle-income country. The sample consisted of 2511 children and adolescents (6-17 years old) from the Brazilian High-Risk Cohort for Mental Conditions. Parent reports on childhood adversity were used to construct adversity latent constructs. Psychopathology was measured by the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) to generate a measure of general psychopathology (the "p" factor). Executive function (EF) and attention orienting toward angry faces were assessed using cognitive tasks. All measures were acquired at two time-points 3 years apart and associations were tested using general linear models. Higher levels of psychopathology were predicted by higher levels of threat cross-sectionally and longitudinally, and by deprivation longitudinally. For EF, worse performance was associated only with deprivation at baseline and follow-up. Finally, threat was associated with attention orienting towards angry faces cross-sectionally, but neither form of adversity was associated with changes over time in attention bias. Our results suggest that threat and deprivation have differential associations with cognitive development and psychopathology. Exposure to adversity during childhood is a complex phenomenon with meaningful influences on child development. Because adversity can take many forms, dimensional models might help to disentangle the specific developmental correlates of different types of early experience. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEU0L8exyTM.

Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Attention Bias Modification for Childhood Anxiety Disorders: A Factorial Randomized Trial of Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to assess group differences in symptom reduction between individuals receiving group cognitive behavioral therapy (G-CBT) and attention bias modification (ABM) compared to their respective control interventions, control therapy (CT), and attention control training (ACT), in a 2 × 2 factorial design. METHODS: A total of 310 treatment-naive children (7-11 years of age) were assessed for eligibility and 79 children with generalized, separation or social anxiety disorder were randomized and received G-CBT (n = 42) or CT (n = 37). Within each psychotherapy group, participants were again randomized to ABM (n = 38) or ACT (n = 41) in a 2 × 2 factorial design resulting in four groups: G-CBT + ABM (n = 21), G-CBT + ACT (n = 21), CT + ABM (n = 17), and CT + ACT (n = 20). Primary outcomes were responder designation as defined by Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale (≤2) and change on the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (PARS). RESULTS: There were significant improvements of symptoms in all groups. No differences in response rates or mean differences in PARS scores were found among groups: G-CBT + ABM group (23.8% response; 3.9 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.3 to 8.1), G-CBT + ACT (42.9% response; 5.6 points, 95% CI 2.2-9.0), CT + ABM (47.1% response; 4.8 points 95% CI 1.08-8.57), and CT + ACT (30% response; 0.8 points, 95% CI -3.0 to 4.7). No evidence or synergic or antagonistic effects were found, but the combination of G-CBT and ABM was found to increase dropout rate. CONCLUSIONS: We found no effect of G-CBT or ABM beyond the effects of comparison groups. Results reveal no benefit from combining G-CBT and ABM for anxiety disorders in children and suggest potential deleterious effects of the combination on treatment acceptability.

Less is more: Patient-level meta-analysis reveals paradoxical dose-response effects of a computer-based social anxiety intervention targeting attentional bias.

BACKGROUND: The past decade of research has seen considerable interest in computer-based approaches designed to directly target cognitive mechanisms of anxiety, such as attention bias modification (ABM). METHODS: By pooling patient-level datasets from randomized controlled trials of ABM that utilized a dot-probe training procedure, we assessed the impact of training "dose" on relevant outcomes among a pooled sample of 693 socially anxious adults. RESULTS: A paradoxical effect of the number of training trials administered was observed for both posttraining social anxiety symptoms and behavioral attentional bias (AB) toward threat (the target mechanism of ABM). Studies administering a large (>1,280) number of training trials showed no benefit of ABM over control conditions, while those administering fewer training trials showed significant benefit for ABM in reducing social anxiety (P = .02). These moderating effects of dose were not better explained by other examined variables and previously identified moderators, including patient age, training setting (laboratory vs. home), or type of anxiety assessment (clinician vs. self-report). CONCLUSIONS: Findings inform the optimal dosing for future dot-probe style ABM applications in both research and clinical settings, and suggest several novel avenues for further research.