Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5541_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
09.09.2026
Размер:
18 Мб
Скачать
54 Chapter 4 Classification, Assessment and Diagnosis, and Intervention
a diagnosis of anxiety disorder with some shared symptoms, but also nonshared symptoms. Each child’s experience may differ in terms of the settings that elicit anxiety, the length of time the anxiety lasts, and whether support from a parent improves the short-term outcome.
Comorbidity across categories or groups of disorders
involves the co-occurrence of two or more disorders in one individual. An adolescent might be struggling, for example, with a mood disorder and a substance use disorder, or an anxiety disorder and an eating disorder. A more specific way that researchers and clinicians have defined comorbidity involves the co-occurrence of two or more disorders where the cooccurrence is greater than chance. That is, we are
iStock.com/Skynesher
Developmental contributions to classification emphasize the ways in which relationship factors influence the development of problems and disorders.
not looking for any two disorders but rather two disorders that are frequently observed together. This definition makes explicit the idea that comorbid conditions are not random. Common, nonrandom pairings in youth include ADHD and conduct disorder, autism spectrum disorder
psychological involvement. In the most recent update, diagnoses of relationship disorders include information about the young child’s relationships with caregivers as well as relationships with other adults such as daycare providers or teachers.
Another perspective on developmental approaches to classification involves explicit appreciation of the principles and practices of developmental psychopathology. Yates, Burt, and Troy (2011) describe several ways to improve classification efforts. The first is an emphasis on developmental pathways and increased focus on the timing of the disorder’s onset. Whether a disorder has an early or later onset may point toward different etiological factors or provide information about the timing of interventions. The second way to improve classification is to focus on age-salient references, with a better understanding of the expression and meaning of disorder given a child’s age, developmental challenges, and available resources. Another way to improve classification is to include multilevel analyses, with consideration of genetic, physiological, psychological, familial, and sociocultural influences on the emergence and maintenance of disorder.
and intellectual developmental disorder, and depression and anxiety.
Comorbidity happens for several reasons. First, given that all classification emphasizes group similarities rather than unique variations, some children and adolescents are not going to match up well with strictly defined categories. The clinical picture for these individuals may include a mix of symptoms from different disorders. Clinicians may then diagnose two disorders, neither of which is quite right (or quite wrong). Alternatively, diagnostic categories that are too loosely or vaguely defined, with lots of common symptoms, also contribute to instances of comorbidity, with some children and adolescents meeting overlapping sets of criteria.
Comorbidity may provide important information beyond multiple diagnoses. There are data that suggest, for example, that children and adolescents at greatest risk for adverse outcomes display both internalizing and externalizing problems (Sallis et al., 2019). Accurate assessments of disorders and comorbidity clearly require careful consideration of both classification information and child or adolescent information.
Transdiagnostic symptoms are patterns of emotion,
thought, and behavior that cut across traditional diagnostic
Heterogeneity, Comorbidity, andTransdiagnostic Symptoms
All classification efforts must contend with several real-life concerns: heterogeneity, comorbidity, and transdiagnostic symptoms. Heterogeneity within categories or groups of disorders involves the ways in which children and adolescents with the same disorder or diagnosis (e.g., ADHD or generalized anxiety disorder) display their own particular sets of difficulties or symptoms. We expect some degree of similarity, of course, in the clinical presentations of individuals with the same disorder. But the DSM-5-TR description of any specific disorder usually includes a variety of domains and symptoms, allowing for countless combinations. For instance, two children may each receive
boundaries, helping to explain the overlap between individual disorders (e.g., depression and anxiety, or conduct disorder and anxiety) and between categories of internalizing and externalizing disorders. An example of a transdiagnostic symptom is emotion dysregulation, “a pattern of emotional experience and/or expression that interferes with appropriate goal-directed behavior” (Beauchaine & Cicchetti, 2019, p. 800). Emotion dysregulation is observed in children and adolescents diagnosed with many different disorders, both internalizing and externalizing. Depending on the combination of various other risk factors and environments, young children who struggle with emotion may go on to display distinctive developmental pathways, experiencing different types of difficulties and receiving different diagnoses. Another example of a transdiagnostic symptom is
Copyright 2024 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Assessment and Diagnosis 55
maladaptive thinking, with patterns of overly negative, poorly reasoned, and self-focused beliefs (Schweitzer et al., 2020). Similar to emotion dysregulation, these cognitive patterns are also observed in children and adolescents diagnosed with many different disorders.
Coghill and Sonuga-Barke (2012) address concerns about classification from another perspective. They note the many ways in which competing views on classification are embedded in larger sociocultural contexts. In a discussion of classification as a practical clinical reality, they state, “It is a clinician’s job to make difficult practical decisions about whether an individual should receive specialist health interventions and which interventions they should receive” (Coghill & Sonuga-Barke 2012, p. 470). Discussing the role of politics and economics in classification and diagnosis, they assert that “childhood disorders arouse strong, but very different, public and political reactions from different groups and individuals with different agendas” (p. 470). These types of classification concerns will be explored in upcoming chapters.
Alternative Approaches to Classification
The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) is a research­oriented dimensional system. Launched in 2009 by the National Institute of Mental Health, RDoC identifies a set of neurobiological and behavioral dimensions that are believed to underlie typical and atypical functions and outcomes (Cuthbert & Insel, 2013). These dimensions include negative valence systems (e.g., fear, anxiety); positive valence systems (e.g., approach motivation, reward learning); cognitive systems (e.g., attention, memory); arousal/modulatory systems (e.g., arousal, sleep); and systems for social processes (e.g., affiliation, social communication). One important goal of the RDoC project is to better understand how to match treatments to individuals.
As noted in the previous section, there are a lot of data that emphasize the overlap among categories and types of disorder. RDoC specifically targets that overlap and explores transdiagnostic risks and patterns. One example of this type of transdiagnostic research is focused on the neuropsychology of decision-making difficulties across different types of disorders. Researchers reported that the impaired decision making observed in children with ADHD reflected impulsivity and disinhibition, while the impairments observed in children with conduct disorder reflected risk taking and a failure to learn from consequences. For children with anxiety, impaired decision making involved being oversensitive to negative reactions; children with depression displayed a lack of motivation and indecision (Sonuga-Barke et al., 2016). So there is a shared dimension of impaired decision making in many children who struggle, but there are also important distinctions. “A depressed teenager may find it hard to motivate herself to go to a party, whereas someone with ADHD may find it
hard to generate and follow through a plan to get there… . A person with anxiety might attend the party but spend most of the night scrutinizing their own actions and worrying about how they are perceived by others” (Sonuga-Barke et al., 2016, p. 322).
Although there is much potential value in the RDoC framework and the research being conducted, important concerns remain. The most significant of these concerns is likely the emphasis on neurobiology. Although conceptualized as a classification system that balanced neurobiological dimensions and behavioral dimensions, the research so far appears to place more emphasis on neurobiology. From a developmental psychopathology perspective, there is a current prioritizing of more explicit integration of development, relationships and environmental contexts, and pathways into the RDoC system (Conradt et al., 2021; King et al., 2021).
The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology
(HiTOP) is an empirically based dimensional classification
model. The model is designed to provide reliable and valid information about the structure of psychopathology that can be used to inform clinical practice and improve outcomes for individuals experiencing distress and dysfunction (Kotov et al., 2017; Kotov et al., 2021). Figure 4.3 illustrates the hierarchical organization of dimensions and domains.
Theory and research on the HiTOP model overlaps theory and research focused on a general factor of psychopathology, the p factor. Following consistent observations of overlap among diagnostic categories and clinical presentations, statistical analyses reveal a heritable, stable factor that contributes to many different patterns of disorder (Pettersson et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2020). In the HiTOP model, the p factor is represented at the top or the broadest level. A comparison of the RDoC and HiTOP models is provided in Box 4.1.

Assessment and Diagnosis

Definitions of Assessment and Diagnosis
When a child or adolescent is evaluated, we need some orderly way of gathering information. Assessment involves the systematic collection of relevant information and is used to solve two kinds of practical problems: (1) differentiating everyday problems or transient difficulties from clinically significant psychopathology, and (2) classifying and caring for those who have been identified as having disorders.
The first practical problem for assessment involves a decision about whether diagnosis is necessary or appropriate, and that necessitates thinking about disorder within a developmental framework. After collecting information about a child’s or adolescent’s various difficulties (and strengths), current distress and dysfunction (and achievements), and likely outcomes, a clinician may conclude that the child
Copyright 2024 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
56 Chapter 4 Classification, Assessment and Diagnosis, and Intervention
Homogeneous Symptom Components / Maladaptive traits
Disorders and Related Constructs Linked to Subfactors and Spectra
Subfactors
Spectra
Syndromes
Superspectra
Symptoms
Figure 4.3 The hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology: An alternative dimensional approach to classification
General Factor of Psychopathology (p-factor)
Externalizing
Somatoform
Components
Conversion
Somatization
Malaise
Head Pain
Gastro-
intestinal Cognitive
Illness Anxiety
Disorder Somatic
Symptom
Disorder
Traits
Anxiousness
Emotional
lability
Hostility
Perseveration
(low) Restricted
affectivity Separation
insecurity
Submissive-
ness
Identity problems Negative
relationships
Fragility
Ineptitude
(low)
Invulnerability
Sexual
Problems
Arousal
Difculties
Low Desire
Orgasmic
Dysfunction Sexual Pain
Internalizing
Eating
Pathology
Anorexia
Nervosa
Binge Eating
Disorder
Bulimia
Nervosa
Detachment
Fear
Distress
Thought Disorder
Mania
Dimensional Syndromes
Components
spaces
Blood-
panic
panic
Rituals
Dysphoria
Lassitude
Anhedonia
Insomnia
Suicidality
Agitation
Retardation Appetite loss Appetite gain
(low) Wellbeing
GAD
Symptoms
Re-
experiencing
Avoidance Hyperarousal
Numbing
Dissociation
Irritability
Pure
obsessions
Components
Euphoric
activation
Hyper-active
cognition Reckless
over-
condence
Components
Psychotic
Disorganized
Inexpressivity
Avolition
Traits
Eccentricity
Cognitive/ perceptual
dysregulation
Unusual beliefs
and
experiences
Fantasy
proneness
Traits
Anhedonia
Depressivity
Intimacy
avoidance
Suspicious-
ness
Withdrawal
Interpersonal
passivity
Disafliative-
ness
(low) Attention
seeking
Components
Interactive
anxiety
Performance
anxiety
Public places
Enclosed
Animal phobia
Situational
phobia
injection-injury
Physiological
Psychological
Cleaning
Checking
Individual Signs, Symptoms, and Maladaptive Behaviors
Agoraphobia
OCD
Panic Disorder
SAD
Social Phobia
Specic Phobia
Borderline PD
Dysthymia
GAD MDD PTSD
Bipolar I & II
Mood
Disorders with
Psychosis
Paranoid PD
Schizophrenia
Spectrum
Schizoid PD
Schizotypal PD
Avoidant PD
(low) Histrionic
PD
Schizoid PD
Traits
Problematic
impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Theft
Distractibility
Risk taking (low) Rigid
perfectionism
(low) Ruminative deliberation
(low)
Workaholism
Disinhibited
Externalizing
Substance
Abuse
Components
Alcohol use
Alcohol
problems
Marijuana use
Marijuana
problems Drug use
Drug problems
Substance-
Related
Disorders
Antisocial
Behavior
Components
Physical
aggression Destructive
aggression
Relational
aggression
Fraud
Traits
Impatient
urgency
(low) Planful
control
(low)
Dependability
Alienation Boredom
proneness
Blame
externalization
(low) Honesty Rebelliousness (low) Empathy
Excitement
seeking
Antisocial PD
Conduct Disorder
IED
ODD
ADHD
Antagonistic Externalizing
Traits
Attention
seeking
Callousness
Deceitfulness
Grandiosity
Manipulative-
ness
Rudeness
Egocentricity
Dominance
Flirtatiousness
(low)
Timorousness
Borderline PD
Histrionic PD
Narcissistic PD
Paranoid PD
Source: Kotov et al. (2017). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies.
or adolescent is functioning within the normal range or is experiencing a “bump-in-the-road” kind of problem. In these cases, although education, advice, or support may be provided, a diagnosis is not made. In other cases, a clinician may become convinced that the child or adolescent displays more serious maladaptation. Assessment, then, would likely result in a specific diagnosis.
method of assigning individuals to specific classification categories. Diagnosis becomes particularly important when psychologists or other mental health professionals talk to parents about the nature of their child’s disorder, when clinical decisions about treatments are made, or when insurance companies require verification of a disorder to approve reimbursements for the cost of c are. With respect to these pract ical issues, assessment certainly depends on gathering information about the specific distress and dysfunction experienced by a child, but it also must include information about a child’s
strengths and accomplishments. We need to know what a child does well not only to help with accurate diagnosis but also to provide valuable insights about effective plans for treatment.
After evaluating the intensity, frequency, duration, and pattern of difficulties in a developmental context, we need to decide what the best fit is between the clinical presentation and available classification categories. When choosing the
The second practical problem involves diagnosis, the
correct category, it is also important to consider whether a child’s clinical presentation reflects a single case of disorder, an atypical or mixed-symptom case, or a combination of comorbid conditions. At times, DSM-5-TR classification requires clinicians to make differential diagnoses, decisions about mutually exclusive categories of disorder. For example, a child would not receive a diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder and disruptive mood dysregulation disorder because the defining symptoms of the former diagnosis are subsumed in the larger symptom set of the latter diagnosis. Overall, researchers and clinicians are concerned
Copyright 2024 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Assessment and Diagnosis 57
Box 4.1 Emerging Science
A Comparison of the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) and the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) Models
The developmental psychopathology approach, at its core, is focused on how adaptation and maladaptation unfold over time, on continuity as well as discontinuity, and on the continuum of typical to atypical functioning (Cicchetti, 2020). Consequently, although diagnostic categories are entirely relevant to the field, categorical diagnostic systems alone cannot sufficiently inform or serve as the organizing framework of developmental psychopathology. Clinical models that include both dimensions and hierarchal structure are needed as context within which developmental psychopathology can be defined and advance.
Although categorical diagnostic systems, like DSM-5-TR, allow for a familiar and standardized approach to diagnosis, they do so at some cost. Among the necessary compromises of such systems is the trade-off of descriptions of psychopathology that reflect the complexity of clinical phenomena for clear diagnostic criteria defining non-overlapping diagnoses. There are many practical reasons for the current ascendency of categorical approaches to diagnosis, but a developmental psychopathology perspective calls for, at a minimum, additional and different models of psychopathology, especially ones that better account for continuity and discontinuity of clinical presentations. Such alternative approaches are necessary for the task of elucidating the origins of clinical disorders, including a process-level understanding of both typical and atypical developmental trajectories.
The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) is one such approach. The RDoC system represents a research framework developed by the NIMH with a focus on the neurobiological processes underlying psychopathology. By integrating multiple levels of information (e.g., genetics, neuropathways, behaviors), it allows for a dimensional approach to investigating and understanding the range of typical to atypical behaviors. In addition to being dimensional, it is also transdiagnostic. RDoC is not meant to be an alternative diagnostic system but rather to provide a conceptual model that better reflects the underlying (true) nature of the signs and symptoms of interest to mental health researchers and clinicians (refer to the information in the main text for additional details).
The more recently developed Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) is meant to stand in contrast to both the traditional categorical approach of the DSM system and the primary research focus of the RDoC system. HiTOP is a dimensional classification system based on empirically derived domains of clinical functioning across hierarchical levels. Unlike
RDoC, the purpose of developing the HiTOP model was to create more robust, non-overlapping, valid domains of clinical disorder relevant to clinical practice. With its emphasis on dimensions, it is analogous to how the medical field thinks about blood pressure or weight. Both are expressed as continuous variables with clinical categories defined by cut points reflecting clinical outcomes. So, for example, in the HiTOP system, social anxiety can be described not as rule-in or rule-out category but rather as a continuum ranging from mild discomfort in a limited number of social settings to disabling distress in most social situations. Like the RDoC system, it stands in contrast to DSM by relying primarily on statistically derived clusters rather than categories based on expert opinion.
Utilizing statistical analysis based on symptom patterns and with an emphasis on validity data, HiTOP yields a hierarchical structure of psychopathology. At the broadest level, it defines a general factor of psychopathology with lower order subfactors becoming increasingly refined and discrete. Included in this structure is a level of syndromes and disorders that genera lly align with the more familiar diagnostic categories of DSM-5-TR. For example, the higher order factor of “Thought Disorder” includes lower order categories such as Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders, Mood Disorders with Psychosis, and Paranoid Personality Disorder. These, in turn, can be defined by more specific symptoms.
Both R DoC and HiTOP are based on dimensional, empirically based models. However, while RDoC is largely focused on the genetic and neurobiological basis for behavioral functioning, HiTOP is primarily focused on psychopathological symptoms, syndromes, and broad functional domains. It is important to note that these are not two competing clinical models but rather two complementary approaches allowing the clinical field to move beyond the limitations of the categorical medical model of the DSM diagnostic approach (Michelini et al, 2021). Both represent conceptual models that better match the complexity and dynamic phenomena of human functioning, including, but not limited to, mental health problems. Indeed, the HiTOP approach can inform RDoC by identifying clinical dimensions that should be the focus of research, and RDoC research can help clarify the nature and validity of HiTOP dimensions (Kotov et al., 2018). Both models have the potential to accelerate progress in how we understand, classify, and treat psychopathology and, in many ways, are better aligned with the developmental psychopathology approach than categorical classification systems.
with diagnostic efficiency, the degree to which clinicians maximize diagnostic hits and minimize diagnostic misses.
With all these diagnostic issues in mind, it is important to remember that we will always have more children with more kinds of problems than we have categories in which to place them. As we continue to improve classification and diagnosis, we emphasize that naming a disorder or diagnosing a child is not the same thing as understanding the disorder or the
Copyright 2024 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
child. Naming is the first step, not the only step. We also need to remember that assigning a particular child’s disorder to a classification category is accomplished at a moment in time. Because children change and continue to develop after a diagnosis is made, diagnoses must be periodically reviewed and reevaluated.
A final concern about diagnosis relates to the effects
of labeling. As discussed at the end of Chapter 1, the
58 Chapter 4 Classification, Assessment and Diagnosis, and Intervention
stigmatization of mental illness is difficult for children and their families to manage. “It is essential to remember that people are not defined by their psychiatric diagnoses. Individuals may have a disorder, but they also possess a core human dignity as well as areas of experiences where they function flexibly, competently, and creatively” (Lieberman et al., 1997, p. 12). The effects of labeling are often viewed as damaging. For example, we are concerned with the self-fulfilling prophecy of children who internalize adult expectations for struggle or failure given a particular diagnosis (such as autism spectrum disorder or ADHD).
We must also recognize, however, that labels may have some positive impact. Parents who have been confused and upset by their children’s behavior, who have questioned their own competence, and who have worried about their children’s futures may view labels as providing some validation for their experiences. In addition, labels may provide both parents and children with knowledge about ways to deal with the difficulties of disorders as well as connections to other parents and other youth in similar situations. Given these multiple perspectives, negotiation among professionals, parents, and children for particular labels with particular meanings is an ever-present issue.
Methods and Processes of Assessment
The Case of Eden
Eden is a nine-year-old fourth grader referred for a psychological evaluation by her parents at the suggestion of her teacher. Eden began to experience school difficulties in third grade that continued into fourth grade and that have gotten considerably worse as the school year goes on. She has difficulties with completing work, especially on long-term projects, and often fails to turn in assignments. Her grades are consistently lower than what either her parents or her teachers believe she is capable of.
The Case of Kai
Kai is a 12-year-old sixth grader referred by their parents for evaluation. Kai currently resists going to school in the mornings due to their extreme and disabling anxiety. Kai also experiences severe headaches before leaving home. Socially, Kai has become increasingly isolated from their classmates and is usually alone after school or hanging out with a neighbor who is two years younger.
The Case of Rohan
Rohan is a 4½-year-old boy referred for assessment and therapy by his pediatrician after she noted that Rohan and his mother’s interactions in the office were characterized by frustration and conflict. Additional concerns expressed by Rohan’s mother and his day care provider included oppositionality, frequent temper
tantrums, and occasional physical aggression. There have been several instances when Rohan has kicked and bitten others at preschool and at home.
In the real world, clinical assessments begin with a specific concern, question, or problem. In these case examples, we think about whether Eden’s school difficulties are the result of anxiety, ADHD, or a learning disorder. We think about whether Kai’s distress is best characterized as anxiety or depression, whether it may resolve on its own, and options for treatment. We think about whether Rohan’s dysfunction reflects the emergence of a more severe psychopathology such as disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, which requires intensive intervention, or whether we are dealing with less severe psychopathology, such as oppositional defiant disorder, which calls for treatment focused on temperament and parenting issues.
Specific concerns influence the assessment strategy that is selected, but most assessments include a more general overview of the child’s circumstances. Clinicians should, of course, respond to the presenting concern, but they need to remain alert to many kinds of contextual information, other possible problems, and the child’s positive characteristics. A narrow focus early in the assessment process may lead to diagnostic error, with a quick confirmation of the initial hypothesis without consideration of alternatives. A limited focus may also lead to a failure to appreciate child­environment contexts in all their complexity.
In a comprehensive assessment, there are many potential participants with different perspectives and agendas. We can expect that information provided by individuals will vary from parent to child/adolescent, from parent to teacher, from parent to clinician, and so on. Each informant provides unique and useful data (Achenbach et al., 1987; De Los Reyes et al., 2015). Different information from different individuals makes sense. We don’t expect children and adolescents to struggle in the exact same ways in different contexts (at home vs. at school), or with different people (parents vs. teachers vs. peers), or with different challenges (self-control vs. academic achievement vs. friendship stress) (Makol et al., 2020). It is also possible that individuals may interpret problematic behaviors in different ways (as something wrong with a child or as something wrong with the child’s environment) (Goolsby et al., 2018).
When considering data from multiple informants, clinicians might be expected to pay extra attention to areas of agreement. For externalizing disorders, there tends to be greater agreement among informants and that agreement is helpful to note (De Los Reyes et al., 2015). When parents and teachers agree, for example, about a child’s autism symptoms, that agreement may point to increased problem severity (Makol et al., 2020).
Disagreements, or discrepant information, may also be meaningful. Parents are usually able to provide helpful data about their children and, in many cases, are the ones
Copyright 2024 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Assessment and Diagnosis 59
most likely to detect problems in their early stages. By early adolescence, however, youth reports of their own distress and dysfunction are increasingly valuable as parents may have a harder time recognizing difficulties such as anxiety or depression (Ford & McCoy, 2021). Teachers may provide information that differs from parents or youth. Given teachers’ experience with many typically-developing or atypically-developing children or adolescents, their information may be especially significant (Curhan et al., 2020; De Los Reyes et al., 2019). Discrepancies may also signal potential problems with treatment decisions and outcomes, such as when parents and adolescents disagree about whether treatment is necessary or what types of treatment might be most useful (Goolsby et al., 2018).
Parental and family characteristics, such as personality, psychopathology, and life events, are important to keep in mind because these kinds of characteristics appear to affect reports and ratings of child or adolescent functioning. Parents who struggle with their own mental illnesses or with social and environmental adversities, for instance, may have lower thresholds for identifying behavior as problematic. Parents may also differ with respect to the levels of concern they display, with some parents more likely to believe that their children will grow out of their problems and improve over time. Accurate assessment of children and adolescents should also consider the cultural background of parents and families. Parents from certain cultures, for example, may be more sensitive to internalizing or externalizing kinds of problems (Rescorla et al., 2019).
In addition to seeking input from multiple informants, using different assessment measures allows the clinician to also gather important information from children or adolescents themselves. For example, interview data helps the clinician understand relevant issues from the child’s perspective. Norm-based symptom checklists generate scores that indicate whether symptoms are diagnostically significant. And projective techniques, as performance­based measures, bring psychological functioning more directly into the clinician’s office.
Assessment Technique: The Interview
Assessments usually begin with interviews. Initial interviews allow parents and children to explain their concerns and, more broadly, to tell their stories. Interviews also provide opportunities to start building the helping relationship, an especially important consideration when clinicians know that they will be working closely with various family members.
In interviews with Eden’s mother, father, and stepmother, each emphasized that school is becoming increasingly stressful for both Eden and for them, with much more time spent closely monitoring assignments, homework, and teacher concerns. In addition, Eden has begun to complain about stomachaches and has missed school as a result. Her mother and father are particularly upset about the fact that Eden has lied to them about schoolwork because they have always felt that they could trust their daughter. Eden’s
parents also provided information about the extended family, noting that two of Eden’s cousins have been diagnosed with ADHD. They believe that Eden does not display the increased activity or impulsiveness observed in these other children. In contrast to these recent difficulties, her parents report that she seemed relaxed and happy during the summer and enjoys playing with her younger sister and in community sports programs. When the focus is not on school, Eden can be very pleasant and can entertain herself for long periods of time by coloring and doing crafts.
Kai’s mother and father noted that, in addition to seeming anxious, Kai is increasingly irritable at home and angry and aggressive when frustrated. They described Kai as having a “short fuse” and as being both oppositional and inflexible. They also reported that the summer prior to this school year, Kai seemed to lose interest and enjoyment in their usual activities. Kai has identified as nonbinary for several years, and both parents report that Kai has received affirmation and support from immediate and extended family, friends at school, and teachers. Kai’s parents are not sure whether or how Kai’s gender identity influences Kai’s current difficulties.
Rohan’s mother, a single parent, reported that he had been a difficult infant, easily upset and difficult to comfort. His infancy was a challenging time for her because she was in the middle of ending an abusive relationship. She reported that by the age of 2, Rohan was consistently aggressive with others and seemed especially stressed in social situations. She talked about feeling very guilty about her current anger and resentment toward him. She said that although she does love him, she no longer expects to have a pleasant and easy time with him and is resigned to the belief that each day with him will be a struggle. She also acknowledged that she feels exhausted and impatient, and she despairs of finding any helpful way to deal with her son.
Interviews with children are also critical sources of information, although the types of interviews conducted with Kai, Eden, and Rohan are going to be very different. The format of child interviews ranges from structured play to highly planned sets of questions to open-ended conversations, and takes into account characteristics such as age and whether the child is comfortable interacting with a clinician apart from parents. Even the youngest children with limited verbal skills can be expected to provide unique assessment data through, for example, their emotional, behavioral, and play patterns. As with parents, ethnicity and cultural background influences on children’s self-reports must be taken into account (Vaughn-Coaxum et al., 2016).
In the interview with 9-year-old Eden, she was subdued and reluctant to talk at first, but she was easily reassured and quickly became more open and communicative. Eden is very aware of her current school difficulties and said she thinks that she needs to try harder. She said that she tries to pay attention in class, but when she later tries to complete assignments at home, she has forgotten what the teacher talked about. She acknowledges that she has sometimes told her parents that she does not have homework because the work is too
Copyright 2024 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
60 Chapter 4 Classification, Assessment and Diagnosis, and Intervention
Assessment Technique: The Standardized Test
In addition to the rich information that can be gathered from interviews, data from standardized tests are almost always part of an assessment. Standardized tests are assessments in which the data from a particular child can be compared to data gathered from large samples of children, including typically developing children and children with various diagnoses. The use of norms allows for the individual’s score to be interpreted relative to age, gender, or both. For example, a result from a five-year­old girl is compared to the results of other girls of similar age, and a result from a 14-year-old boy is compared to
iStock.com/Mmpile
Assessment of young children often involves interviews, tests, and observations in age-appropriate, comfortable settings.
hard, and she wants to have more free time at home. Eden was able to describe many activities that she enjoys, including time spent with a best friend, and talked excitedly about a planned trip with her father, stepmother, and sister. She did describe having trouble falling asleep at night because she is worried about things such as upcoming tests and about someone breaking into the house. When this happens, she leaves her room and crawls into bed with a parent.
In the interview with 12-year-old Kai, Kai agrees with their parents that they do not like to go to school, which they describe as “mostly boring.” Kai says that they used to do well in school but does not talk about prior accomplishments with any sense of pride or joy. Kai disputes their parents’ description of their behavior at home, saying that they would prefer to be left alone but that their parents are “always bugging me about everything” and that these conflicts are upsetting. Kai said that they frequently worry that they will get sick in school and throw up in the classroom. This worry has led Kai to go to the school nurse almost every day and to resist going to school at all if they are feeling even somewhat ill. In response to questions about their interests, Kai said that they used to like playing soccer and practicing the piano. Now, however, Kai describes these as “boring and dumb” and has dropped both activities. Kai says that their gender identification does not cause any specific problems but acknowledges that a few peers seem to avoid them at school, and it has been difficult to make a new close friend after their previous best friend moved several states away.
In the interview with 4½-year-old Rohan, he was briefly seen alone and then with his mother. Rohan had no difficulty separating from his mother and played enthusiastically but carelessly with various toys in the office. He generally ignored the clinician and rebuffed attempts to engage in shared play activities. When joined by his mother, however, Rohan became impulsive and aggressive. At one point, he hit his mother with a toy car and laughed. Rohan’s mother told him that he had hurt her, and that if he did it again, she would not allow him to watch television when they got home.
the results of other adolescent boys. The most common standardized tests are rating scales, checklists, and basic questionnaires completed by parents, children and adolescents, and teachers. As noted previously, we expect some areas of agreement and some areas of disagreement when reviewing and integrating information from various individuals.
There are global measures of personality functioning and problem areas, such as the Child Behavior Check List (CBCL), a component of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA), the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC), developed by Reynolds and colleagues, and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), developed by Goodman and colleagues. There are also disorder- or symptom-based tests, such as the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS), used in both research and clinical settings, that measure symptoms of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, disruptive behavior disorders, and psychotic disorders. Other examples include Reynold’s Adolescent Depression Scale (RADS) and the Yale Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS).
Other tests examine risk factors, providing meaningful information about a child’s problematic functioning. For example, the Early Child Irritability-Related Impairment Interview is intended to distinguish typical bad moods and tantrums from more clinically significant irritability in young children (Wakschlag et al., 2020). Standardized tests for ratings of child and adolescent symptoms and disorders may be completed by adults and youth from many countries and cultures, with reliability and validity demonstrated for many of the most common tests (e.g., Achenbach et al., 2012).
Other common standardized tests include measures of general cognitive or intellectual functioning, such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children (WISC) or the Stanford-Binet. Neurological and neuropsychological evaluations are sometimes also included as part of a comprehensive assessment plan.
Other traditional measures of personality and clinical symptoms include projective measures such as the Rorschach inkblots and the Thematic Apperception
Copyright 2024 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Assessment and Diagnosis 61
Test (TAT), a storytelling task. Projective measures are based on the premise that, given an ambiguous stimulus, individuals’ responses will reflect the projection of unconscious motivations, concerns, and conflicts. Although academic researchers frequently decry the continued use of projective measures, given the relatively poor data on their reliability and validity (Hunsley et al.,
2015), clinicians counter that these measures often allow them to engage children in ways that enable them to talk about difficult feelings or experiences indirectly and in ways that are developmentally more familiar and appropriate.
Assessment Technique: Physiological Measures
Most clinical assessments do not involve physiological measures. With increased attention to physiological functioning and neurobiological dimensions of disorder, however, there is a lot of interest in physiological assessment, and there are many innovative tools and techniques for diagnosis and intervention (Langnecker & Phillips, 2021). Concerns about cost, feasibility, and usefulness must be addressed before these kinds of assessments are routine (De Los Reyes & Aldao, 2015). In the meantime, physiological assessments will continue to be part of research designs that inform clinical practice.
Assessment Technique: Observation
Another source of valuable information comes from
observations made by the clinician. Clinicians usually
observe children in clinical settings, such as offices, but also may observe children in home, daycare, or school settings. These observations can provide specific sorts of contextual data, including analyses of what comes before and what follows a child’s dysfunctional behavior. Observations may also be more encompassing. For example, a clinician might focus on evaluating children’s relationships to determine whether the relationship is itself the cause of disorder or how it plays a part in the maintenance of a child’s disturbance.
Many structured observations use an explicit developmental framework. The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS and ADOS-2), for example, is used in the evaluation of autism spectrum disorder in children. As a developmentally informed assessment, it is designed to elicit atypical examples of problem behavior. Structured observations also address the context specificity of problem behaviors—that is, problem behaviors that appear in one context and not another, such as at home and not at preschool, or at preschool and not at home (Yates et al., 2011).
Because many of the initial concerns about children are related to school functioning, teachers and schools can be important sources of clinical data. In some cases, teachers complete parallel forms of parent questionnaires. Many times, teachers’ information is consistent with that provided
by parents and children; other times, different information becomes available. Teacher characteristics related to training and experience may influence the information provided about children. Teacher ratings of students can be influenced by students’ ethnicity and race, with Black children rated as having more difficulties compared to similar White children (Barbarin et al., 2020; Shonkoff et al., 2021). Other differences in teacher ratings may be tied to actual differences in children’s behaviors in various settings (at home versus in school). In addition to teacher ratings and school records, a large collection of possible tests is available, designed to examine many different aspects of ability and achievement and to measure cognitive processes that might affect learning, such as inattention and memory.
Another perspective on the central roles of the school classroom, teachers, and school psychologists emphasizes the need to coordinate diagnoses of children using the DSM with the special education categories delineated in the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 (Wodrich et al., 2008). Because the
special education categories are broad and the criteria are general, the students in any category have “decidedly heterogeneous problems and diverse educational needs” (p. 627). For example, children diagnosed with ADHD often improve with a combination of medication and classroom interventions; this information should be part of school­based planning. Another example of necessary coordination and planning involves the identification of children whose disorders place them at higher risk for poor outcomes and in greater need of limited school services. Finally, from a developmental view, children’s functioning in school (both academic and social) is a key marker of well-being. Understanding children’s school adaptation or impairment is a necessary component of any comprehensive assessment.
Eden’s Diagnostic Summary
Eden’s current difficulties are most consistent with a DSM­5-TR diagnosis of ADHD. The diagnosis of ADHD with a predominant clinical presentation of inattention is often made later in the elementary school years, when demands for organization and independent functioning in school begin to increase. Eden’s academic achievement is generally consistent with her intellectual functioning, and there is no evidence that she responds poorly to instruction, so there is no strong case to be made for a learning disorder. Clearly, Eden is a somewhat anxious child, and the problems that she is experiencing in school have exacerbated this vulnerability. Although a case can be made for diagnosing an anxiety disorder as well, it may be most reasonable to monitor Eden’s anxiety symptoms as the ADHD is addressed.
For Eden, the set of tests included the parent version of the CBCL; the teacher version of the CBCL; the Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Rating Scale; two self­report questionnaires including the Depression Self­Rating Scale and the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale; the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children; the
Copyright 2024 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
62 Chapter 4 Classification, Assessment and Diagnosis, and Intervention
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement; and the Integrated Visual and Auditory Continuous Performance Test, which is designed to measure one’s ability to inhibit response, remain vigilant, demonstrate consistency of attentional focus, and respond quickly.
Kai’s Diagnostic Summary
Taken together, the data provided suggest that Kai is experiencing both an anxiety disorder and a depressive disorder. Kai’s symptoms meet the DSM-5-TR criteria for both disorders. Both disorders contribute to significant distress and dysfunction, and both disorders appear to require immediate intervention.
For Kai, a set of tests similar to Eden’s was used. However, because there were no concerns about academic problems, the cognitive and attentional measures were not administered. To better understand the presence and extent of specific anxiety symptoms in Kai’s clinical presentation, the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders was included. Because emotional difficulties were especially problematic along with social adjustment, some projective techniques were used during the assessment. The Rorschach and the TAT provided additional ways to understand Kai’s subjective experience of the world around them. In completing the self-report measures of emotional functioning, Kai denied most of the obvious symptoms of depression and anxiety, with the exception of anxiety related to being physically ill. Projective data (e.g., repeated sad and discouraging themes in Kai’s TAT stories), however, suggested depressed mood, relative developmental immaturity, and a poor sense of self-efficacy. Kai’s parents independently completed the CBCL. There were striking consistencies in their reports, wit h highly signif icant elevations on the three internalizing scales reflecting symptoms of social withdrawal, anxiety, and depression.
Rohan’s Diagnostic Summary
Although ADHD is a reasonable diagnosis given the clinical presentation, it is a difficult diagnosis to make confidently given Rohan’s very young age, the high level of stress he and his mother have experienced, and their relative lack of social support. A diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder was made as a way of capturing the most important concern at this time, which centers on Rohan’s difficulty with developmentally appropriate self-control and his mother’s difficulty managing day-to-day routines and interactions with him.
For Rohan, age and presenting concerns influence a different selection of tests. Because of his age, Rohan did not complete any assessment measures himself. His mother completed the Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment questionnaire and the parent version of the CBCL. The resulting CBCL profile had extremely high scores on all the externalizing scales, indicating that aggression, impulsivity, and hyperactivity were all significant problems for Rohan. Because some of the initial concerns reflected a high level of discomfort in social situations and some other atypical behaviors and developmental patterns, the Children’s Autism
Rating Scale was completed by the psychologist. The score on this scale was not in the clinically significant range.
Psychological assessment, broadly defined, is fundamental to a differential diagnostic process that allows clinical concerns to be considered from both dimensional and categorical perspectives. Keep in mind that, in many ways, assessments are a combination of clinical science, expertise, and art. Children, adolescents, and their families seek mental health care because they are experiencing distress and dysfunction. Mental health professionals engage in painful conversations and balance the privacy of children and adolescents with a need to gather meaningful information and share assessment results with responsible adults. Indeed, some of the most important aspects of communication between mental health professionals and parents are to help parents make sense of a difficult situation and to keep them engaged with and supportive of their children. According to Yates, Burt, and Troy (2011, p. 256), the “developmental formulation paints a hopeful picture in which there is an enduring capacity for change and, even in the midst of extreme maladaptation, a shared humanity in which we are all more alike than we are different.”

Intervention

Classification, assessment, and diagnosis are most practical when they provide information about what can be done to help distressed children. This section provides an introduction to the topic of interventions for children and adolescents, with an emphasis on the progress that has already been made as well as the potential that has yet to be fully achieved. The basic notion that age-related norms and expectations must be considered when designing any youth intervention strategy is a key contribution from the developmental psychopathology framework. This framework informs decisions about whether and when to intervene, the goals of intervention, and the most effective types of treatments. The developmental perspective emphasizes the unique context of treatment for each child, taking into account factors that have contributed to the child’s disorder, including those related to family and peer networks, those related to schools, and those related to other environmental and sociocultural settings. The developmental psychopathology framework’s emphasis on risk and resilience also enriches ongoing intervention efforts.
When effective treatments are available, we need to publicize that information and identify the best ways to implement and scale up treatments to reach as many struggling children and adolescents as possible. We also need to be concerned about transitions and gaps in mental health care treatment from child to adolescent to young adult care. Relatively few older adolescents, for example, receive information and support related to planning for shifts from one provider to another (Leeb et al., 2020).
Copyright 2024 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Nontraditional interventions, such as those provided by
(Uni
Ta rgets of Preventive Interventions
paraprofessionals and those delivered in new formats (e.g., internet- or app-based) are increasingly prevalent (Schueller & Torous, 2020). Regardless of the provider or format, ethical issues related to child and adolescent psychotherapy, including issues involving autonomy, confidentiality, protection, and communication (with parents, with teachers, and with other mental health professionals) must always be addressed.
The Efficacy of Psychotherapy for Children and Adolescents
Research on youth psychotherapy generally can be sorted by whether it is focused on outcome or process.
Outcome research has to do with whether children
and adolescents have improved at the end of treatment compared to their pretreatment distress and dysfunction as well as compared to others who have not received treatment. Results of numerous meta-analytic studies confirm that psychotherapy works, with statistically significant and clinically meaningful effects for infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents (Vaughn-Coaxum & Weisz, 2021). Therapies that focus on helping children by working with their parents and families also have received a great deal of research support (Twum-Antwi et al., 2020).
It is important to understand that not all children who receive or participate in an evidence-based intervention improve in the same ways (or improve at all). Youth who share a diagnosis may differ on many other factors (e.g., number of adverse experiences; specific adversities such as maltreatment; caregiver support or ability to follow the treatment plan; family-level risks), each of which may influence treatment response and outcome. Disparities in outcomes may also be influenced by sociocultural factors such as poverty or discrimination (Slopen & Williams, 2021; Vaughn-Coaxum & Weisz,
2021). Adaptation or modification of evidence-based treatments for use with varied groups of individuals may also influence outcomes.
Process research deals with the specific mechanisms
and common factors that account for therapeutic change. Examples of process research include studies that deconstruct multi-part interventions to identify the parts with the most positive impacts or studies that explore the ways in which the therapeutic alliance—the collaborative bond between therapist and child/adolescent—influences the course and outcome of treatment. Reviews of process­related research have focused on shifts from one-size-fits­all models of treatment to models that emphasize specific pairings (or matching) of disorders, treatments, and client characteristics. Beyond matching disorders and treatments, researchers and clinicians look forward to the design of individualized interventions that address each child’s particular set of difficulties.
Intervention 63
asiseeit/Getty Images
The therapeutic alliance, a collaborative bond between therapist and child, contributes to good treatment outcomes.
Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Interventions
An intervention can be characterized in a variety of ways based on the target (child, parent, or school) or the timing of the intervention. Differences in primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions are related to timing. Primary
prevention involves reducing or eliminating risks as well as
reducing the incidence of disorder in children (McLaughlin, 2014; refer to Figure 4.4).
There are three types of preventive measures: (1)
universal preventive measures, which are provided for
entire populations (e.g., mandatory immunizations for children); (2) selective preventive measures, provided for groups at above-average risk (e.g., Head Start programs for preschoolers from disadvantaged backgrounds); and (3)
indicated preventive measures, provided for groups with
specific risk factors that include more extensive interventions (e.g., packages of services for families with prematurely born infants). Primary interventions that begin early, last longer, and are more intensive are more likely to be effective. Examples of primary prevention efforts include nutrition and caregiving education provided in hospitals for parents
Figure 4.4 Targets of primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions
Exposure
Primary
versal)
Source: McLaughlin (2014). Developmental epidemiology.
Secondary
(Selective)
Disorder Outcome
Tertiary
(Indicated)
Copyright 2024 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.