Background: DSM-5 introduced the anxious distress specifier in recognition of the clinical significance of anxiety in depressed patients. Recent studies that supported the validity of the specifier did not use measures that were designed to assess the criteria of the specifier but instead approximated the DSM-5 criteria from scales that were part of an existing data base. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we examined the validity of the specifier diagnosed with a semistructured interview. Methods:Two hundred sixty patients with a principal diagnosis of major depressive disorder were evaluated with semistructured diagnostic interviews. The patients were rated on clinician rating scales of depression, anxiety and irritability, and completed self-report measures.Results: Approximately three-quarters of the depressed patients met the criteria for the anxious distress specifier. Patients with anxious distress had a higher frequency of anxiety disorders, particularly panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, as well as higher scores on measures of anxiety, depression, and anger. The patients meeting the anxious distress subtype reported higher rates of drug use disorders, poorer functioning during the week before the evaluation, and poorer coping ability compared to the patients who did not meet the anxious distress specifier. Moreover, anxious distress was associated with poorer functioning and coping after controlling for the presence of an anxiety disorder. Conclusions:The results of the present study indicate that anxious distress is common in depressed patients and support the validity of the DSM-5 anxious distress specifier.

Four studies with 180 5-7 year olds, 165 8-11 year olds and 199 adults show that young children appreciate the distinctive role played by mechanistic explanations in tracking causal patterns. Young children attributed greater knowledge to individuals offering mechanistic reasons for a claim than others who provide equally detailed nonmechanistic reasons. In Study 1, 5-7 year olds attributed greater knowledge to those offering mechanistic reasons. In Studies 2 and 3, all ages (5-7 and adults for Study 2; 5-7, 8-11 and adults for Study 3) assigned greater knowledge to those offering mechanistic reasons about causally central features than those offering nonmechanistic reasons. In Study 4, all ages (5-7, 8-11, adults) modulated the epistemic bias as a function of embedding goals. Sophie Kerr is currently at the

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire 12-18 (LoPF-Q 12-18) is the only self-report measure informed by the Level of Personality Functioning ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013]) Alternative Model of Personality Disorders developed for adolescents. The present investigation includes two studies evaluating the English LoPF-Q 12-18. In Study 1, single-factor and bifactor structures (unidimensional severity criterion and four specific factors: identity, self-direction, empathy, intimacy) were evaluated in an ethnically diverse community sample ( N = 453; age 10–18; 57% female). Study 2 used a community control ( n = 298; age 10–18; 54.4% female) and clinical sample ( n = 94; age 11–18; 58.5% female) to examine reliability, validity, and clinical utility. Study 1 results supported the bifactor model, with a robust general factor and little multidimensionality caused by the group factors, suggesting an essentially unidimensional structure. Study 2 revealed good internal consistency and construct validity and provided clinical cut-offs, supporting the use of the LoPF-Q 12-18 total score in research and clinical applications.

No abstract