Search

There is a reliable association between poor reading and anxiety, but we do not completely understand the specifics of this relationship. The current study included a sample of children (N = 284; M[subscript age] = 9.30, SD[subscript age] = 1.31) who completed a reading (word, nonword, and text reading accuracy, word, nonword, and text reading fluency, passage reading comprehension) and anxiety (social anxiety, generalized anxiety, separation anxiety, physical injury fears/phobias, panic, obsessive compulsive symptoms) assessment. Analyses included bivariate and partial correlations, principal components analysis, and hierarchical clustering. We found a very tentative suggestion in the data that there may be a specific yet weak association between reading accuracy and social anxiety. The clinical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

To draw valid and reliable conclusions from child studies involving facial expressions, well-controlled and validated (child) facial stimuli are necessary. The current study is the first to validate the facial emotional expressions of child models in school-aged children. In this study, we validated the Radboud Faces Database child models in a large sample of children (N = 547; 256 boys) aged between 8 and 12. In addition, associated validation measures such as valence, clarity, and model attractiveness were examined. Overall, the results indicated that children were able to accurately identify the emotional expressions on the child faces in approximately 70% of the cases. The highest accuracy rates were found for "happiness," whereas "contempt" received the lowest accuracy scores. Children confused the emotions "fear" and "surprise," and the emotions "contempt" and "neutral" with one another. Ratings of all facial stimuli are available (https://osf.io/7srgw/) and can be used to select appropriate stimuli to investigate the processing of children's facial emotional expressions.

Deaf/deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) children are at an increased risk of developing mental health problems, with growing evidence that they may experience greater anxiety symptoms than hearing peers. The present study investigated whether Australian children with varying degrees of hearing loss experienced increased anxiety symptoms compared to hearing children. Furthermore, we examined whether child anxiety symptoms were associated with known risk factors including psychological symptoms of anxiety and depression in parents, age at detection, early intervention and device fitting, type of hearing device, and peer problems. Participants were 65 parents of children with hearing loss aged between 4 and 11 years old (M = 6.05, SD = 1.60) seeking treatment for hearing loss at a specialized hearing clinic in Australia. Based on parent reports, we found that the children with hearing loss had fewer anxiety symptoms than their hearing peers (using normative data). Psychological distress of parents was the only factor that uniquely associated with child anxiety. Parents of children with hearing loss were found to experience greater emotional distress compared to parents of hearing children. This suggests parents may require additional support to cope with the social and economic strains associated with childhood hearing loss.

Background: Evidence suggests that cognitive bias modification of interpretations (CBM‐I) is effective in modifying interpretation biases and has a small effect on reducing anxiety in children and adolescents. However, most evidence to date is based on studies which report anxiety or general distress using ad‐hoc Likert‐type or Visual Analogue Scales, which are useful but do not reliably index symptoms of clinical importance. This meta‐analysis aimed to establish the effects of CBM‐I for children and adolescents on both anxiety and depression using psychometrically validated symptom measures, as well as state negative affect and negative and positive interpretation bias. Methods: We identified studies through a systematic search. To be eligible for inclusion, studies needed to target interpretation biases, not combine CBM‐I with another intervention, randomly allocate participants to CBM‐I or a control condition, assess a mental health outcome (i.e., anxiety or depression symptoms using validated measures or state measures of negative affect) and/or interpretation bias and have a mean age less than 18 years. Results: We identified 36 studies for inclusion in the meta‐analysis. CBM‐I had a small and non‐significant unadjusted effect on anxiety symptoms (g = 0.16), no effect on depression symptoms (g = −0.03), and small and non‐significant unadjusted effects on state negative affect both at post‐training (g = 0.16) and following a stressor task (g = 0.23). In line with previous findings, CBM‐I had moderate to large unadjusted effects on negative and positive interpretations (g = 0.78 and g = 0.52). No significant moderators were identified. Conclusions: CBM‐I is effective at modifying interpretation bias, however there were no effects on mental health outcomes. The substantial variability across studies and paucity of studies using validated symptom measures highlight the need to establish randomized controlled trial protocols that evaluate CBM‐I in clinical youth samples to determine its future as a clinical intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]