The so-called 'replicability crisis' has sparked methodological discussions in many areas of science in general, and in psychology in particular. This has led to recent endeavours to promote the transparency, rigour, and ultimately, replicability of research. Originating from this zeitgeist, the challenge to discuss critical issues on terminology, design, methods, and analysis considerations in fear conditioning research is taken up by this work, which involved representatives from fourteen of the major human fear conditioning laboratories in Europe. This compendium is intended to provide a basis for the development of a common procedural and terminology framework for the field of human fear conditioning. Whenever possible, we give general recommendations. When this is not feasible, we provide evidence-based guidance for methodological decisions on study design, outcome measures, and analyses. Importantly, this work is also intended to raise awareness and initiate discussions on crucial questions with respect to data collection, processing, statistical analyses, the impact of subtle procedural changes, and data reporting specifically tailored to the research on fear conditioning.

The threat of predictable and unpredictable aversive events was developed to assess short-duration (fear) and long-duration (anxiety) aversive states in humans. A typical experiment consists of three conditions: a safe condition (neutral (N)), during which participants are safe from aversive stimuli, and two threat conditions—one in which aversive events are administered predictably (P) (i.e., signaled by a threat cue), and one in which aversive stimuli are administered unpredictably (U). During the so-called NPU -threat test, ongoing change in aversive states is measured with the startle reflex. The NPU -threat test has been validated in pharmacological and clinical studies and can be implemented in children and adults. Similar procedures have been applied in animal models, making the NPU -threat test an ideal tool for translational research. The procedure is relatively short (35 min), simple to implement and generates consistent results with large effect sizes.

No abstract

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is one of the most commonly used instruments for screening psychopathology in children and adolescents. This study evaluated the hypothesized five-factor structure of the SDQ and examined its convergent validity against comprehensive clinical diagnostic assessments. Data were derived from the National Comorbidity Survey - Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A), a nationally representative sample of U.S. adolescents aged 13 to 18 years. Parents/parent surrogates (n=6,483) was asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire including the SDQ and DSM-IV comprehensive diagnostic information on the participating adolescents. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the factor structure of the SDQ. The five-factor solution of the SDQ (including emotional, conduct, hyperactivity-inattention, peer relationship, and prosocial) provided a satisfactory fit to the data, and was invariant across sex, age, race/ethnicity and income subgroups. SDQ scores predicted a significantly increased probability of meeting criteria for a DSM-IV disorder, with better prediction for behavior disorders than for mood disorders. Decreasing the SDQ cutoffs to the 80th percentile significantly increased the sensitivity from 39% to 63% for the SDQ Total Difficulties Score, with an expected decrease in specificity from 93% to 87%. This work confirms the five-factor structure of the SDQ in an ethnically and sociodemogrpahically diverse community sample of adolescents. Our findings strengthen empirical evidence for the use of the parent-reported SDQ as a screening tool for DSM-IV behavioral and emotional disorders in adolescents identified in the general population.