Search

In July 2020, two of the largest funders of mental health research worldwide – the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the Wellcome Trust – announced plans to standardize mental health measurement. Specifically, obtaining funding for research related to depression and anxiety will be conditional on using four specific measures. While we agree that there are obvious benefits to standardizing mental health measurement, some of which are discussed in the announcement by NIMH and Wellcome, here we focus on potential unintended negative consequences of this initiative: Lacking transferability across settings: scales were developed for specific settings (e.g. community, clinic) and purposes (e.g. intervention studies), and their properties might not be easily transferable between settings.Narrowing the scope of inquiry: individuals experience mental health difficulties in wide‐ranging ways, and the narrow scope of the proposed scales risks limiting important insights for research and treatments.Lowering the threshold for robust evidence: empirical findings limited to a specific imperfect measure are less robust than if such evidence is (re)produced across multiple scales.Creating a two‐tiered mental health science: arbitrarily conferring gold standard status on some imperfect measures over others will create an artificial two‐tiered system leading to an impoverishment of mental health research. Recommendations for mitigating these negative consequences include the following: mandating a wider set of measures that have been validated for specific populations and research purposes, funding research assessing the measurement properties of scales across settings and purposes, stressing the limitations of mandated measures to avoid en masse application and replacement of measures across studies and health systems and creating speed bumps to ensure that any widespread adoption of mandated measures does not result in impoverishment of mental health science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While taxonomy segregates anxiety symptoms into diagnoses, patients typically present with multiple diagnoses; this poses major challenges, particularly for youth, where mixed presentation is particularly common. Anxiety comorbidity could reflect multivariate, cross-domain interactions insufficiently emphasized in current taxonomy. We utilize network analytic approaches that model these interactions by characterizing pediatric anxiety as involving distinct, inter-connected, symptom domains. Quantifying this network structure could inform views of pediatric anxiety that shape clinical practice and research. Methods: Participants were 4964 youths (ages 5–17 years) from seven international sites. Participants completed standard symptom inventory assessing severity along distinct domains that follow pediatric anxiety diagnostic categories. We first applied network analytic tools to quantify the anxiety domain network structure. We then examined whether variation in the network structure related to age (3-year longitudinal assessments) and sex, key moderators of pediatric anxiety expression. Results: The anxiety network featured a highly inter-connected structure; all domains correlated positively but to varying degrees. Anxiety patients and healthy youth differed in severity but demonstrated a comparable network structure. We noted specific sex differences in the network structure; longitudinal data indicated additional structural changes during childhood. Generalized-anxiety and panic symptoms consistently emerged as central domains. Conclusions: Pediatric anxiety manifests along multiple, inter-connected symptom domains. By quantifying cross-domain associations and related moderation effects, the current study might shape views on the diagnosis, treatment, and study of pediatric anxiety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In recent years, a new framework for analyzing and understanding posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was introduced; the network approach. Up until now, network analysis studies of PTSD were largely conducted on small to medium sample sizes (N < 1,000), which might be a possible cause of variability in main findings. Moreover, only a limited number of network studies investigated comorbidity.Methods: In this study, we utilized a large sample to conduct a network analysis of 17 symptoms of PTSD (DSM-IV), and compared it to the result of a second network consisting of symptoms of PTSD and depression (based on Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]). Our sample consisted of 502,036 treatment-seeking veterans, out of which 158,139 had fully completed the assessment of symptoms of PTSD and a subsample of 32,841 with valid PCL and PHQ-9 that was administered within 14 days or less.Results: Analyses found that in the PTSD network, the most central symptoms were feeling distant or cut off from others, followed by feeling very upset when reminded of the event, and repeated disturbing memories or thoughts of the event. In the combined network, we found that concentration difficulties and anhedonia are two of the five most central symptoms.Conclusion: Our findings replicate the centrality of intrusion symptoms in PTSD symptoms' network. Taking into account the large sample and high stability of the network structure, we believe our study can answer some of the criticism regarding stability of cross-sectional network structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In their recent paper, Forbes et al. (2019; FWMK) evaluate the replicability of network models in two studies. They identify considerable replicability issues, concluding that "current 'state-of-the-art' methods in the psychopathology network literature [...] are not well-suited to analyzing the structure of the relationships between individual symptoms". Such strong claims require strong evidence, which the authors do not provide. FWMK identify low replicability by analyzing point estimates of networks; contrast low replicability with results of two statistical tests that indicate higher replicability, and conclude that these tests are problematic. We make four points. First, statistical tests are superior to the visual inspection of point estimates, because tests take into account sampling variability. Second, FWMK misinterpret the statistical tests in several important ways. Third, FWMK did not follow established recommendations when estimating networks in their first study, underestimating replicability. Fourth, FWMK draw conclusions about methodology, which does not follow from investigations of data, and requires investigations of methodology. Overall, we show that the "poor replicability "observed by FWMK occurs due to sampling variability and use of suboptimal methods. We conclude by discussing important recent simulation work that guides researchers to use models appropriate for their data, such as nonregularized estimation routines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Steinley, Hoffman, Brusco, and Sher (2017) proposed a new method for evaluating the performance of psychological network models: fixed-margin sampling. The authors investigated LASSO regularized Ising models (eLasso) by generating random datasets with the same margins as the original binary dataset, and concluded that many estimated eLasso parameters are not distinguishable from those that would be expected if the data were generated by chance. We argue that fixed-margin sampling cannot be used for this purpose, as it generates data under a particular null-hypothesis: a unidimensional factor model with interchangeable indicators (i.e., the Rasch model). We show this by discussing relevant psychometric literature and by performing simulation studies. Results indicate that while eLasso correctly estimated network models and estimated almost no edges due to chance, fixed-margin sampling performed poorly in classifying true effects as "interesting" (Steinley et al. 2017, p. 1004). Further simulation studies indicate that fixed-margin sampling offers a powerful method for highlighting local misfit from the Rasch model, but performs only moderately in identifying global departures from the Rasch model. We conclude that fixed-margin sampling is not up to the task of assessing if results from estimated Ising models or other multivariate psychometric models are due to chance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]