Oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: A meta-analytic review of factor analyses and cross-validation in a clinic sample

Prevalence, subtypes, and correlates of DSM-IV conduct disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication

“…First, the Aggressive and Severe Covert classes are composed of "destructive" symptoms, while the Rule Violations and Deceit/Theft classes are composed of "non-destructive" symptoms, replicating the distinction between destructive and non-destructive symptoms found in some prior studies (Frick & Ellis, 1999;Frick et al, 1993). Second, the Rule Violations, Deceit/Theft, and Severe Covert classes consist of "covert" symptoms, while the Aggressive and Pervasive CD classes contain "overt" symptoms, replicating the overt-covert distinction found in other prior studies (Achenbach, Conners, Quay, Verhulst, & Howell, 1989;Frick & Ellis, 1999;Frick et al, 1993). In addition to capturing these previously documented distinctions, the fivecategory scheme includes a severity distinction in which two subtypes (Severe Covert and Pervasive CD) are composed of combinations of narrower subtypes.…”

“…To date, empirical justification for these classes is lacking, as is information about the relation of such classes to course of illness, comorbidity, or treatment response. Prior studies have suggested alternative classification schemes for CD symptoms, making distinctions between overt (e.g., physical assault) and covert (e.g., shoplifting) symptoms, destructive and non-destructive symptoms, proactive and reactive aggression, socialized and unsocialized subtypes, and based on the presence versus absence of callous-unemotional traits and specific comorbities (Dodge, Lochman, Harnish, Bates, & Pettit, 1997;Frick & Ellis, 1999;Frick et al, 1993;Rutter, Giller, & Hagell, 1998). The fact that empirical support exists for each of these dichotomous distinctions suggests that a more textured and multidimensional classification system is needed to characterize subtypes comprehensively.…”

Symptom-based subfactors of DSM-defined conduct disorder: Evidence for etiologic distinctions.

“…Given this hypothesis, we expected CD subfactors to show both common influences (those related to the broader dimension linking them) and distinct influences (those that are subfactor specific). To test this hypothesis, we first sought to replicate results from previous factor analytic studies of CD symptoms that provided evidence for subfactors within CD (e.g., Frick et al, 1993;Tackett et al, 2003). Then, we investigated genetic and environmental influences that both linked and differentiated the resulting subfactors.…”

Predicting adult emotional and behavioral problems from externalizing problem trajectories in a 24-year longitudinal study

“…Because externalizing behavior can change both in form and severity over time [6,9,18,29], studies on the development of externalizing behavior need to employ a developmental perspective including several measurement points to provide complete information about the severity of the problem. In addition, externalizing behavior problems comprise different types of behaviors that not only develop in different ways but also lead to different outcomes [6,15], consequently, developmental studies need to distinguish between development of different types of externalizing behavior [3]. In this 24-year follow-up study, we investigated the predictive strength of developmental trajectories in various childhood externalizing behavior types for a large range of adult psychopathology.…”