Does size really matter? A multisite study assessing the latent structure of the proposed ICD-11 and DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for PTSD

Background: Researchers and clinicians within the field of trauma have to choose between different diagnostic descriptions of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the DSM-5 and the proposed ICD-11. Several studies support different competing models of the PTSD structure according to both diagnostic systems; however, findings show that the choice of diagnostic systems can affect the estimated prevalence rates. Objectives: The present study aimed to investigate the potential impact of using a large (i.e. the DSM-5) compared to a small (i.e. the ICD-11) diagnostic description of PTSD. In other words, does the size of PTSD really matter? Methods: The aim was investigated by examining differences in diagnostic rates between the two diagnostic systems and independently examining the model fit of the competing DSM-5 and ICD-11 models of PTSD across three trauma samples: university students (N = 4213), chronic pain patients (N = 573), and military personnel (N = 118). Results: Diagnostic rates of PTSD were significantly lower according to the proposed ICD-11 criteria in the university sample, but no significant differences were found for chronic pain patients and military personnel. The proposed ICD-11 three-factor model provided the best fit of the tested ICD-11 models across all samples, whereas the DSM-5 seven-factor Hybrid model provided the best fit in the university and pain samples, and the DSM-5 six-factor Anhedonia model provided the best fit in the military sample of the tested DSM-5 models. Conclusions: The advantages and disadvantages of using a broad or narrow set of symptoms for PTSD can be debated, however, this study demonstrated that choice of diagnostic system may influence the estimated PTSD rates both qualitatively and quantitatively. In the current described diagnostic criteria only the ICD-11 model can reflect the configuration of symptoms satisfactorily. Thus, size does matter when assessing PTSD

Major life events as predictors of loneliness in adolescence

© 2015, Springer Science+Business Media New York. The present study investigates the validity of early major life events as predictors of loneliness among 978 high-school students. A cross-sectional research design was utilized to examine the relationship between latent classes of six major life events and feelings of family-related and peer-related loneliness. Latent class analysis revealed three distinct event typologies: a normative group, a mover and divorce group, and a loss and illness group. Subsequent logistic regression revealed that membership of the movers and divorce group was associated with family-related loneliness, but not with peer-related loneliness. Membership of the loss and illness group was not associated with family-related or peer-related loneliness. The study lends some support to theoretical approaches that associate loneliness with major life events. However, the mixed study results underscore the relevance of investigating a spectrum of life events and distinguishing between different sources of loneliness.status: publishe

Polyvictimization and psychopathology among children and adolescents: A systematic review of studies using the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire

Background: Exposure to child abuse can lead to lasting mental health problems. Extant research has found that different types of child abuse tend to co-occur and overlap, which merits the investigation of the effects of exposure to multiple types of childhood mistreatment. Objective: The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence on the associations between multiple different types of interpersonal victimization or polyvictimization, and indicators of psychopathology among children ages 0–17. Methods: The review included studies across all economic strata and research on nationally representative, community, and at-risk samples, using the same standardized assessment tool (i.e. the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire or JVQ). The review was conducted using peer-reviewed evidence published up until August 2019 from Scopus, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Medline, CINAHL, and ERIC. Out of 4998 relevant references screened, 255 met the inclusion criteria, 22 of which aimed to address childhood polyvictimization and psychopathology. Results: A total of 21 of the 22 included studies identified a significant positive association between polyvictimization and various indicators of psychopathology comprising both externalizing (e.g. anger), internalizing problems (e.g. depression) and total psychological distress. A range of studies demonstrated that polyvictimization was a stronger risk factor for psychopathology than individual (sub)types of victimization. Based on the study findings, we provide a set of recommendations for future research on polyvictimization and psychopathology. Conclusion: The present systematic review was the first to review the evidence on the associations between polyvictimization (as measured by the JVQ) and child and adolescent psychopathology in the global research literature. As a novel approach, the present review included both normative and high-risk samples. The results showed that polyvictimization is a substantial risk factor for mental health problems spanning both inner-directed and outer-directed mental health difficulties. However, the inconsistency in methods of defining and measuring polyvictimization severely undermines the scientific impact of this body of work. Additional well-designed, longitudinal studies that take account of the context-specific nature of polyvictimization are required to better establish the causal relationships between childhood polyvictimization and psychopathology so as to improve prevention and intervention efforts