Intermittent explosive disorder-integrated research diagnostic criteria: Convergent and discriminant validity

et al. 2008

Psychiatry Research

Self Cite

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prevalence of suicidal and self-injurious behavior among subjects with intermittent explosive disorder

McCloskey

Ben‐Zeev

et al. 2008

Psychiatry Research

Self Cite

“…Individuals meeting IED-IR criteria reported more impulsiveness, anger and aggression, and had poorer psychosocial functioning than a personality disordered comparison group ]. This finding was replicated and extended recently in a study that included a behavioral measure of aggression as well as Axis I and healthy volunteer comparison groups [McCloskey et al, 2006]. In this study, individuals meeting IED-IR criteria exhibited the highest level of behavioral aggression.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 79%

The relationship between impulsive verbal aggression and intermittent explosive disorder

McCloskey

Berman

et al. 2007

Aggressive Behavior

Self Cite

Intermittent explosive disorder (IED) is the sole psychiatric diagnostic category for which aggression is a cardinal symptom. IED focuses on physical aggression, but researchers have argued for the inclusion of verbal aggression (VA) (e.g., arguing, threatening) as a part of the IED criteria set. The utility of VA in identifying clinically relevant aggression, however, is unknown. IED participants were compared to individuals without a marked history of physical aggression, but who report frequent (two or more times a week) VA, and non-aggressive personality-disorderindividuals on behavioral and self-report measures of aggression, self-report measures of related constructs (e.g., anger, affective lability), and a clinician assessment of psychosocial impairment. Both the IED and VA groups were more aggressive, angry, and clinically impaired than personality-disorder individuals, while the IED and VA groups did not differ from each other on these measures. These results support the clinical importance of frequent VA for future iterations of the IED criteria set.

“…We refer to this updated model as a social-emotional information processing (SIEP) model. This addition reflects what we know about the role of negative affect in aggressive behavior (Berkowitz, 1990;Verona, Patrick, & Lang, 2002) as well as evidence that aggressive individuals have more trait anger (McCloskey et al, 2006), emotional lability (Fettich, McCloskey, Look, & Coccaro, 2015), and greater physiological reactivity (Patrick, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Development of a social emotional information processing assessment for adults (SEIP‐Q)

Coccaro

Fanning

2016

Aggressive Behavior

Self Cite

An expanded self-report, vignette-based, questionnaire was developed to assess five components in a social emotional information processing model (SEIP: attribution, emotional response, response valuation, outcome expectancy, response efficacy, and response enactment), first in a population-based sample (n ¼ 250) and, second in healthy control participants (n ¼ 50) and in those with DSM-5 Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED: n ¼ 50). SEIP-Q vignettes depict, separately, both overtly aggressive and relationally aggressive as well as socially ambivalent scenarios. This expanded SEIP-Q assessment demonstrated good internal reliability, as well as convergent and discriminant validity, for all five SEIP components. IED participants differed from healthy controls in all SEIP-Q components. This expanded SEIP-Q assessment is thus proposed as a reliable and valid method for studying the various stages of SEIP in adult human subjects. Aggr. Behav. 43:47-59, 2017.