Search

Emotion dysregulation, understood as a critical transdiagnostic factor in the etiology and maintenance of psychopathology, is among the most common reasons youth are referred for psychiatric care. The present systematic review examines two decades of questionnaires used to assess emotion (dys)regulation in youth.Using "emotion (dys)regulation," we searched PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science for empirical, peer-reviewed journal studies published prior to May 2021 in clinical and/or non-clinical youth. A total of 510 studies met selection criteria and were included.Across the literature, 115 distinct self-, parent-, or other -informant-reported measures of emotion (dys)regulation were used in cross-sectional (67.1%), longitudinal (22.4%), intervention (9.0%), and mixed design (1.6%) studies. Out of 115 different questionnaires, a subset of just five measures of emotion (dys)regulation were used in most of the literature (i.e., 59.6% of studies). Moreover, reviewed studies examined emotion (dys)regulation in over 20 distinct clinical groups, further supporting emotion dysregulation as a transdiagnostic construct.Numerous themes emerged. Broadly, we found that measures differ in their ability to capture: internal versus external components of emotion dysregulation; the use of adaptive versus maladaptive responses; and subjective experiences more broadly versus particular affective states. These findings serve to guide researchers and clinicians in selecting appropriate measurement tools for assessing specific domains of child and adolescent emotion dysregulation.

Objective: The Affective Reactivity Index (ARI) is widely used to assess young people’s irritability symptoms, but youth and caregivers often diverge in their assessments. Such informant discrepancy might stem from poor reliability. However, evidence from genetic, imaging and treatment studies suggests that irritability may not be a unitary construct. Hence informants might be sensitive to different aspects of irritability. We use an out-of-sample replication approach and a longitudinal design to test these hypotheses. Method: Across two independent samples (N1=765, 8-21 years; N2=1910, 6-21 years), we investigate the reliability and measurement invariance of the ARI, examine sociodemographic and clinical predictors of discrepant reporting, and probe the utility of a bifactor model for cross-informant integration. Results: Despite good internal consistency and 6-week-retest-reliability of parent and youth forms, we confirm substantial informant discrepancy in ARI ratings, which is stable over six weeks (n1=177). Measurement invariance across informants was weak, indicating that parents and youth may interpret ARI items differently. Informant-discrepancy increased with irritability severity, but which informant reported higher child-irritability depended on the child’s diagnostic status. In both datasets, a bifactor model parsing informant-specific from shared irritability-related variance fit the data well. Conclusion: Parent and youth ARI reports and their discrepancy are reliable. However, parent and youth ratings may reflect different interpretations of the scale items; hence they should not be averaged. Our findings suggest that irritability is not a unitary construct. Future work should investigate and model different aspects of irritability, which might be more accessible to specific informants.

QuestionThe context for the implementation of evidence-based psychological treatments (EBPTs) often differs from the context in which the treatment was developed, which necessitates adaptations. In this systematic review we build on, and add to, prior approaches by examining the method used to guide such adaptations. In particular, we sought to elucidate the extent to which an empirical process is used.Study selection and analysisWe focused on publications describing adaptations made to EBPTs for adults diagnosed with a mental illness. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and Web of Science from database inception to July 2018. Two raters independently coded the articles for the method used to conduct the adaptation, the reason for and nature of the adaptation, and who made the adaptation.FindingsThe search produced 20 194 citations, which yielded 152 articles after screening. The most commonly used methods for planned adaptations were literature review (57.7%), clinical intuition (47.0%) and theory (38.9%). The use of data from stakeholder interviews ranked fourth (21.5%) and the use of other types of data (eg, pilot study, experiment, survey, interview) ranked last at fifth (12.1%). Few publications reporting ad hoc adaptations were identified (n=3).ConclusionsThis review highlights a need to (a) educate providers and researchers to carefully consider the methods used for the treatment adaptation process, and to use empirical methods where possible and where appropriate, (b) improve the quality of reporting of stakeholder interviews and (c) develop reporting standards that articulate optimal methods for conducting treatment adaptations.