Differentiated nomological networks of internalizing, externalizing, and the general factor of psychopathology (‘p factor’) in emerging adolescence in the ABCD study

Abstract

Background Structural models of psychopathology consistently identify internalizing (INT) and externalizing (EXT) specific factors as well as a superordinate factor that captures their shared variance, the p factor. Questions remain, however, about the meaning of these data-driven dimensions and the interpretability and distinguishability of the larger nomological networks in which they are embedded. Methods The sample consisted of 10 645 youth aged 9–10 years participating in the multisite Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study. p, INT, and EXT were modeled using the parent-rated Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Patterns of associations were examined with variables drawn from diverse domains including demographics, psychopathology, temperament, family history of substance use and psychopathology, school and family environment, and cognitive ability, using instruments based on youth-, parent-, and teacher-report, and behavioral task performance. Results p exhibited a broad pattern of statistically significant associations with risk variables across all domains assessed, including temperament, neurocognition, and social adversity. The specific factors exhibited more domain-specific patterns of associations, with INT exhibiting greater fear/distress and EXT exhibiting greater impulsivity. Conclusions In this largest study of hierarchical models of psychopathology to date, we found that p, INT, and EXT exhibit well-differentiated nomological networks that are interpretable in terms of neurocognition, impulsivity, fear/distress, and social adversity. These networks were, in contrast, obscured when relying on the a priori Internalizing and Externalizing dimensions of the CBCL scales. Our findings add to the evidence for the validity of p, INT, and EXT as theoretically and empirically meaningful broad psychopathology liabilities.

Heterogeneity Within Youth With Childhood-Onset Conduct Disorder in the ABCD Study

“…As scores on these subscales have been linked to differences in neural and psychophysiological response (31,41,42), these findings demonstrate a strength of the study: the characterization of meaningful groups that would not otherwise emerge when simply examining groups defined by the DSM-5 criteria. CD+ youth also scored significantly higher on an aggregate liability for broad psychopathology and externalizing psychopathology with a trend-level lower scores on liability for internalizing psychopathology, consistent with previous research on the nomological networks of the psychopathology factors (49). In addition, the CD+ youth had significant environmental, social, and neurocognitive impairments.…”

“…These profiles also defined groups that differed significantly on clinically relevant variables. The P factor is conceptualized as a broad liability for all forms of prevalent psychiatric symptomatology, while the EXT and INT factors represent more of a domain-specific liability (49,72,73). Therefore, different factor scores on P and EXT for the different profiles suggests that these latent profiles provide meaningful information regarding risk for psychopathology.…”

“…Based on work examining patterns of psychopathology in emerging adolescence (49), we predicted that CD+ youth would exhibit high levels of both a general liability for broad psychopathology and variance specific to externalizing disorders. We also predicted that these indicators would differ as a function of personality profile, specifically with individuals with a high distress personality profile also scoring high on a broad liability for psychopathology, while a group marked by high levels of CU traits would display greater externalizing psychopathology.…”

Reliability and validity of bifactor models of dimensional psychopathology in youth.

“…This has led to the application of bifactor models (Caspi et al, 2014; Lahey et al, 2012), which separate the shared (or general, transdiagnostic) and the unique (or specific) dimensions of psychopathology. This type of modeling is advantageous because it allows shared and unique dimensions of psychopathology to be linked with shared and unique biological factors (Brislin et al, 2020; Durham et al, 2021; Kaczkurkin et al, 2019; Sprooten et al, 2021), which may yield superior specificity when examining biological underpinnings of mental conditions in youth in comparison with correlated models. One of the most widely used and extensive psychopathology assessment tools in young people is the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), which has been modeled using the bifactor structure in many prior studies (Constantinou & Fonagy, 2019).…”

An update on the assessment of culture and environment in the ABCD Study®: Emerging literature and protocol updates over three measurement waves

“…To our knowledge, there are at least 17 published studies to date using CE measures, covering unique associations between family factors (e.g., conflict, monitoring, acceptance/warmth) and amygdala reactivity ( Demidenko et al, 2021 ); suicidality ( Janiri et al, 2020 ), maladaptive guilt ( Donohue et al, 2020 ), eating disorders ( Kerr et al, 2021 ), and early substance exposure ( Wang et al, 2021 ). In addition, school factors and prosocial behavior appear uniquely associated with general psychopathology, accounting for comorbidities across internalizing and externalizing behaviors ( Brislin et al, 2021 ). Parental warmth and positive school environments may buffer the effects of neighborhood disadvantage on resting-state functional connectivity ( Rakesh et al, 2021 ).…”