Family Processes and Child Psychopathology: A Between- and Within-Family/Child Analysis

Abstract

Funding. There is no funding to report for the present work. Conflicts of interest/Competing interests. There is no conflict of interests to report for the present work. Availability of data and material. The current study is based on a de-identified open datasetthe Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study. The usage did not require IRB approval. See: https://nda.nih.gov/abcd. Ethics approval: ABCD research sites obtained ethical approvals through a central Institutional Review Board (cIRB) at the University of California, San Diego, except that the site at Washington University in St. Louis utilized their local IRB approval. NIH-recognized research institutions can access the de-identified ABCD data with federal-wide assurance. According to the IRB of Stony Brook University, the current use of the ABCD data for secondary analysis is exempt from IRB review. Consent to participate: Informed consent and assent of parents and children were obtained before the baseline assessment. Consent for publication: Informed consent and assent of parents and children were obtained before the baseline assessment. NIH-recognized research institutions can access the de-identified ABCD data with federal-wide assurance. Code availability. The current analyses were conducted based on open-source R packages.

Prevalence and Contributing Factors of Childhood Trauma, Anxiety, and Depression Among Adolescents From Two-Child Families in China

“…High parental education and family income had significant protective effects on childhood trauma and family conflict was related to high levels of anxiety (37)(38)(39). It also supports the hypothesis that the family is a very important social ecosystem affecting the psychological development of adolescents (40).…”

Confounding in Non-Experimental Studies Linking Caregiver Warmth to Youth Adjustment: The Problem and Potential Solutions

“…These designs typically work by comparing two observations that differ in warmth but are more similar than they would be in a random sample, and thus less vulnerable to confounding (D'Onofrio et al, 2020). For example, a handful of studies have used methods like twin studies (e.g., Burt et al, 2013), adoption studies (e.g., Reuben et al, 2016), sibling comparisons (e.g., Eradus et al, 2024), or within-subject comparisons over time (e.g., Lin et al, 2021) to perform more rigorous studies of caregiver warmth. Such comparisons are harder to accomplish but will offer a valuable complement to measuring and adjusting for confounders in the typical non-experimental study.…”