Child and adolescent patients may display mental health concerns within some contexts and not others (e.g., home vs. school). Thus, understanding the specific contexts in which patients display concerns may assist mental health professionals in tailoring treatments to patients' needs. Consequently, clinical assessments often include reports from multiple informants who vary in the contexts in which they observe patients' behavior (e.g., patients, parents, teachers). Previous meta-analyses indicate that informants' reports correlate at low-to-moderate magnitudes. However, is it valid to interpret low correspondence among reports as indicating that patients display concerns in some contexts and not others? We meta-analyzed 341 studies published between 1989 and 2014 that reported cross-informant correspondence estimates, and observed low-to-moderate correspondence (mean internalizing: r = .25; mean externalizing: r = .30; mean overall: r = .28). Informant pair, mental health domain, and measurement method moderated magnitudes of correspondence. These robust findings have informed the development of concepts for interpreting multi-informant assessments, allowing researchers to draw specific predictions about the incremental and construct validity of these assessments. In turn, we critically evaluated research on the incremental and construct validity of the multi-informant approach to clinical child and adolescent assessment. In so doing, we identify crucial gaps in knowledge for future research, and provide recommendations for “best practices” in using and interpreting multi-informant assessments in clinical work and research. This paper has important implications for developing personalized approaches to clinical assessment, with the goal of informing techniques for tailoring treatments to target the specific contexts where patients display concerns.

No abstract

Lower family cohesion is associated with adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems. However, there are likely individual differences in youth's responses to family processes. For example, adolescents higher in negative emotional reactivity, who often exhibit elevated physiological responsivity to context, may be differentially affected by family cohesion. We explored whether youth's negative emotional reactivity moderated the relation between family cohesion and youth's symptoms and tested whether findings were consistent with the diathesis-stress model or differential susceptibility hypothesis. Participants were 651 adolescents (M = 12.99 ± .95 years old; 72% male) assessed at two time points (Time 1, ages 12–14; Time 2, age 16) in Pittsburgh, PA. At Time 1, mothers reported on family cohesion and youth reported on their negative emotional reactivity. At Time 2, youth reported on their symptoms. Among youth higher in negative emotional reactivity, lower family cohesion predicted higher symptoms than higher family cohesion, consistent with the diathesis-stress model.

No abstract

Attempts to understand subjectivity have historically involved distinguishing the strengths of subjective methods (e.g., survey ratings from informants) from those of alternative methods (e.g., observational/performance-based tasks). Yet a movement is underway in Psychology that considers the merits of intersubjectivity: Understanding the space between two or more informant’s subjective impressions of a common person or phenomenon. In mental health research, understanding differences between subjective impressions have less to do with informants’ characteristics and more to do with the social environments or contexts germane to the people or phenomena examined. Our article focuses on one relatively understudied social environment: the cultural context. We draw from seminal work on psychological universals, as well as emerging work on cultural norms (i.e., cultural tightness) to understand intersubjectivity effects through a cross-cultural lens. We report a meta-analysis of 314 studies of intersubjectivity effects in mental health, revealing that (a) this work involves independent research teams in more than 30 countries, (b) informants rating a target person’s mental health (e.g., parent and teacher ratings of a child’s behavior) commonly provide diverging estimates of that person’s mental health, and (c) greater convergence between subjective reports relates to a “tighter” or more norms-bound culture. Our article illustrates strategies for understanding divergence between subjective reports. In particular, we highlight theoretical and methodological frameworks for examining patterns of divergence between subjective reports in relation to data from nonsubjective methods. We also describe how research on intersubjectivity informs efforts to improve the interpretability of subjective assessments in multiple subdisciplines in Psychology.